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
One aspirational goal of computational chemistry is to predict potent and drug-like binders for any protein, such that only those that bind are synthesized. In this Roadmap, we describe the launch of Critical Assessment of Computational Hit-finding Experiments (CACHE), a public benchmarking project to compare and improve small-molecule hit-finding algorithms through cycles of prediction and experimental testing. Participants will predict small-molecule binders for new and biologically relevant protein targets representing different prediction scenarios. Predicted compounds will be tested rigorously in an experimental hub, and all predicted binders as well as all experimental screening data, including the chemical structures of experimentally tested compounds, will be made publicly available and not subject to any intellectual property restrictions. The ability of a range of computational approaches to find novel binders will be evaluated, compared and openly published. CACHE will launch three new benchmarking exercises every year. The outcomes will be better prediction methods, new small-molecule binders for target proteins of importance for fundamental biology or drug discovery and a major technological step towards achieving the goal of Target 2035, a global initiative to identify pharmacological probes for all human proteins. Critical Assessment of Computational Hit-finding Experiments (CACHE) is a public benchmarking project to compare and improve computational small-molecule hit-finding approaches through cycles of prediction, compound synthesis and experimental testing. By that, CACHE will enable a more efficient and effective approach to hit identification and 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".