Normalizing Molecular Docking Rankings using Virtually Generated Decoys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug discovery research often relies on the use of virtual screening via molecular docking to identify active hits in compound libraries. An area for improvement among many state-of-the-art docking methods is the accuracy of the scoring functions used to differentiate active from nonactive ligands. Many contemporary scoring functions are influenced by the physical properties of the docked molecule. This bias can cause molecules with certain physical properties to incorrectly score better than others. Since variation in physical properties is inevitable in large screening libraries, it is desirable to account for this bias. In this paper, we present a method of normalizing docking scores using virtually generated decoy sets with matched physical properties. First, our method generates a set of property-matched decoys for every molecule in the screening library. Each library molecule and its decoy set are docked using a state-of-the-art method, producing a set of raw docking scores. Next, the raw docking score of each library molecule is normalized against the scores of its decoys. The normalized score represents the probability that the raw docking score was drawn from the background distribution of nonactive property-matched decoys. Assuming that the distribution of scores of active molecules differs from the nonactive score distribution, we expect that the score of an active compound will have a low probability of having been drawn from the nonactive score distribution. In addition to the use of decoys in normalizing docking scores, we suggest that decoy sets may be a useful tool to evaluate, improve, or develop scoring functions. We show that by analyzing docking scores of library molecules with respect to the docking scores of their virtually generated property-matched decoys, one can gain insight into the advantages, limitations, and reliability of scoring functions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".