Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42894262›Full record

ArticleChemMedChem2026

Evaluating Machine Learning Affinity Prediction Methods on Novel Lead Optimization Data: A 15-PGDH Case Study.

Alexander S Rich, Leela S Dodda, Daniel J Price

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ChemMedChem, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexander S RichInductive Bio, Brooklyn, New York, USA.
Leela S DoddaNimbus Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Daniel J PriceNimbus Therapeutics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7436-0883

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent machine learning (ML) methods for protein-ligand affinity prediction, such as Boltz-2 and AEV-PLIG, have been reported to approach free energy perturbation (FEP) accuracy on well-known benchmarks. Even short of that accuracy, ML-based potency models that fall between FEP and common docking scoring functions in accuracy and speed offer clear potential value. Here, we report a case study using recently disclosed data from four related ligand series targeting 15-hydroxyprostaglandin dehydrogenase (15-PGDH). We evaluate each ML method's predictive accuracy with a focus on when it could be used to influence synthetic priorities. AEV-PLIG performed poorly across most series, and adding literature 15-PGDH inhibitors to its training did not improve performance. Boltz-2 performed well on series most similar to published inhibitors in its training, achieving accurate cofolding (median ligand RMSD ≤0.81 Å) and rank order. However, for a series exploring a new region of the binding pocket, Boltz-2 sometimes generated less accurate poses and predicted all ligands in the series to be less potent than a published exemplar, despite experimental potency gains of up to 500x. These results highlight both the promise in well-characterized chemical space and limitations in the novel regions where computational guidance is most needed.

Indexed as

Enzyme InhibitorsHydroxyprostaglandin DehydrogenasesMachine LearningBinding SitesHumansLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationMolecular StructurePrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsProtein BindingStructure-Activity RelationshipThermodynamics15-hydroxyprostaglandin dehydrogenaseEnzyme InhibitorsHydroxyprostaglandin DehydrogenasesLigandsbinding affinity predictioncofoldingfree energy perturbationlead optimizationmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID42894262
PMCPMC13677808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.