Screening for Dihydrofolate Reductase Inhibitors Using MOLPRINT 2D, a Fast Fragment-Based Method Employing the Naïve Bayesian Classifier: Limitations of the Descriptor and the Importance of Balanced Chemistry in Training and Test Sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fragment-based similarity searching method, MOLPRINT 2D, was employed for virtual screening of Escherichia coli dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors. Using the original training set of 50,000 compounds, only marginal enrichment factors (between 1 and 3) could be achieved on the test library. The active structures contained in the training and test libraries represented different types of "chemistry", that is, different substructural features associated with activity. Training and test sets were pooled in a 2nd step and randomly split into training and test of equal size, with the objective of smoothing out the different chemical characteristics of both libraries. In a 10-fold cross-validation study on the new training and test sets, typically 10-fold enrichment could be found in the first 96 positions, 4-fold enrichment in the first 384 positions, and 3-fold enrichment in the first 1536 positions, corresponding to 6, 10, and 28 hits, respectively (out of a total of 307; activity defined as average residual activity of less than 80%). The conclusions are 2-fold. On one hand, the exact fragment-matching similarity searching method employed here is not capable of finding completely novel hit structures. On the other hand, this study emphasizes the requirement for a comparable distribution of chemical features of the training and test sets. MOLPRINT 2D is freely downloadable from http://www.cheminformatics.org.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".