A New, Improved Hybrid Scoring Function for Molecular Docking and Scoring Based on AutoDock and AutoDock Vina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated docking is one of the most important tools for structure-based drug design that allows prediction of ligand binding poses and also provides an estimate of how well small molecules fit in the binding site of a protein. A new scoring function based on AutoDock and AutoDock Vina has been introduced. The new hybrid scoring function is a linear combination of the two scoring function components derived from a multiple linear regression fitting procedure. The scoring function was built on a training set of 2412 protein-ligand complexes from pdbbind database (www.pdbbind.org.cn, version 2012). A test set of 313 complexes that appeared in the 2013 version was used for validation purposes. The new hybrid scoring function performed better than the original functions, both on training and test sets of protein-ligand complexes, as measured by the non-parametric Pearson correlation coefficient, R, mean absolute error (MAE), and root-mean-square error (RMSE) between the experimental binding affinities and the docking scores. The function also gave one of the best results among more than 20 scoring functions tested on the core set of the pdbbind database. The new AutoDock hybrid scoring function will be implemented in modified version of AutoDock.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".