Effect of Input Differences on the Results of Docking Calculations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sensitivity of docking calculations to the geometry of the input ligand was studied. It was found that even small changes in the ligand input conformation can lead to large differences in the geometries and scores of the resulting docked poses. The accuracy of docked poses produced from different ligand input structures-the X-ray structure, the minimized Corina structure, and structures generated from conformational searches and molecular dynamics ensembles-were also assessed. It was found that using the X-ray ligand conformation as docking input does not always produce the most accurate docked pose when compared with other sources of ligand input conformations. Furthermore, no one method of conformer generation is guaranteed to always produce the most accurate docking pose. The docking scores are also highly sensitive to the source of the input conformation, which might introduce some noise in compound ranking and in binding affinity predictions. It is concluded that for the purposes of reproducibility and optimal performance, the most prudent procedure is to use multiple input structures for docking. The implications of these results on docking validation studies are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it