ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026
A Chemical Foundation Model Benchmark for PFAS Bioactivity Prediction: Multi-Task Fine-Tuning Beats Fingerprint Baselines, PFAS Domain Pretraining Does Not Help.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) comprise more than 21,000 chemicals, yet fewer than 1.3% have any experimental bioactivity measurement, making structure-based hazard prediction the gating problem for prioritizing the untested majority. Existing PFAS models are single-task and rarely evaluated under leakage-aware cross-validation. We present the first multitask chemical foundation-model benchmark for PFAS bioactivity, fine-tuning off-the-shelf MolFormer-XL with 156 ToxCast classification heads under Tanimoto-Butina cluster-out cross-validation, which is appropriate because 89% of PFAS have empty Murcko scaffolds. The model reaches macro AUROC 0.764, beating a Morgan-fingerprint XGBoost baseline by +0.18 and winning on 155 of 156 end points. That baseline is, however, partly degenerate: binary Morgan fingerprints map a quarter of the compounds onto identical vectors, and sweeping eight 1D/2D/3D representations on the same folds raises the best classical model to 0.688, so the margin properly attributable to the foundation model is +0.076. A matched factorial ablation shows that backbone fine-tuning and multitask learning are synergistic: multitask learning helps only once the backbone is fine-tuned (+0.08). This interaction is backbone- and task-dependent: it reproduces on Tox21 for two backbones but is absent for ChemBERTa-2 on PFAS, and label-free encoder diagnostics show this is not because ChemBERTa-2 represents PFAS poorly, so static representation quality does not predict postfine-tuning performance. PFAS-specific domain-adaptation pretraining gives no detectable improvement (Δ = - 0.01 to - 0.03). Mondrian-by-class conformal calibration improves rare-active-class coverage from 0.36 to 0.78, and an applicability-domain analysis shows only 26% of untested PFAS lie close enough to the training set for the model to be applied without caveat. The representation also transfers to soil-water partitioning (Kd) regression, where it holds at Spearman ρ = 0.75 even on PFAS chemistries absent from training while the fingerprint baselines collapse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.