CACHE (Critical Assessment of Computational Hit-finding Experiments): A public–private partnership benchmarking initiative to enable the development of computational methods for hit-finding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational approaches in drug discovery and development hold great promise, with artificial intelligence methods undergoing widespread contemporary use, but the experimental validation of these new approaches is frequently inadequate. We are initiating Critical Assessment of Computational Hit-finding Experiments (CACHE) as a public benchmarking project that aims to accelerate the development of small molecule hit-finding algorithms by competitive assessment. Compounds will be identified by participants using a wide range of computational methods for dozens of protein targets selected for different types of prediction scenarios, as well as for their potential biological or pharmaceutical relevance. Community-generated predictions will be tested centrally and rigorously in an experimental hub(s), and all data, including the chemical structures of experimentally tested compounds, will be made publicly available without restrictions. The ability of a range of computational approaches to find novel compounds will be evaluated, compared, and published. The overarching goal of CACHE is to accelerate the development of computational chemistry methods by providing rapid and unbiased feedback to those developing methods, with an ancillary and valuable benefit of identifying new compound-protein binding pairs for biologically interesting targets. The initiative builds on the power of crowd sourcing and expands the open science paradigm for drug discovery.
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 | 0.100 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
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".