Progressive Docking: A Hybrid QSAR/Docking Approach for Accelerating In Silico High Throughput Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A combination of protein-ligand docking and ligand-based QSAR approaches has been elaborated, aiming to speed-up the process of virtual screening. In particular, this approach utilizes docking scores generated for already processed compounds to build predictive QSAR models that, in turn, assess hypothetical target binding affinities for yet undocked entries. The "progressive docking" has been tested on drug-like substances from the NCI database that have been docked into several unrelated targets, including human sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), carbonic anhydrase, corticosteroid-binding globulin, SARS 3C-like protease, and HIV1 reverse transcriptase. We demonstrate that progressive docking can reduce the amount of computations 1.2- to 2.6-fold (when compared to traditional docking), while maintaining 80-99% hit recovery rates. This progressive-docking procedure, therefore, substantially accelerates high throughput screening, especially when using high accuracy (slower) docking approaches and large-sized datasets, and has allowed us to identify several novel potent nonsteroidal SHBG ligands.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".