Keeping pace with the explosive growth of chemical libraries with structure‐based virtual screening
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent efforts to synthetically expand drug‐like chemical libraries have led to the emergence of unprecedently large virtual databases. This surge of make‐on‐demand molecular datasets has been received enthusiastically across the drug discovery community as a new paradigm. In several recent studies, virtual screening (VS) of larger make‐on‐demand collections resulted in the identification of novel molecules with higher potency and specificity compared to more conventional VS campaigns relying on smaller in‐stock libraries. These results inspired ultra‐large VS against various clinically relevant targets, including key proteins of the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. As library sizes rapidly surpassed the billion compounds mark, new computational screening strategies emerged, shifting from conventional docking to fragment‐based and machine learning‐accelerated methods. These approaches significantly reduce computational demands of ultra‐large screenings by lowering the number of molecules explicitly docked onto a target. Such strategies already demonstrated promise in evaluating libraries of tens of billions of molecules at relatively low computational cost. Herein, we review recent advancements in structure‐based methods for ultra‐large virtual screening that drug discovery practitioners have adopted to explore the ever‐expanding chemical universe. This article is categorized under: Data Science > Databases and Expert Systems Data Science > Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Molecular and Statistical Mechanics > Molecular Mechanics
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it