Are 2D fingerprints still valuable for drug discovery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, molecular fingerprints extracted from three-dimensional (3D) structures using advanced mathematics, such as algebraic topology, differential geometry, and graph theory have been paired with efficient machine learning, especially deep learning algorithms to outperform other methods in drug discovery applications and competitions. This raises the question of whether classical 2D fingerprints are still valuable in computer-aided drug discovery. This work considers 23 datasets associated with four typical problems, namely protein-ligand binding, toxicity, solubility and partition coefficient to assess the performance of eight 2D fingerprints. Advanced machine learning algorithms including random forest, gradient boosted decision tree, single-task deep neural network and multitask deep neural network are employed to construct efficient 2D-fingerprint based models. Additionally, appropriate consensus models are built to further enhance the performance of 2D-fingerprint-based methods. It is demonstrated that 2D-fingerprint-based models perform as well as the state-of-the-art 3D structure-based models for the predictions of toxicity, solubility, partition coefficient and protein-ligand binding affinity based on only ligand information. However, 3D structure-based models outperform 2D fingerprint-based methods in complex-based protein-ligand binding affinity predictions.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".