Current perspectives and trend of computer-aided drug design: a review and bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Computer-aided drug design (CADD) is a drug design technique for computing ligand-receptor interactions and is involved in various stages of drug development. To better grasp the frontiers and hotspots of CADD, we conducted a review analysis through bibliometrics. METHODS: A systematic review of studies published between 2000 and 20 July 2023 was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Literature on CADD was selected from the Web of Science Core Collection. General information, publications, output trends, countries/regions, institutions, journals, keywords, and influential authors were visually analyzed using software such as Excel, VOSviewer, RStudio, and CiteSpace. RESULTS: A total of 2031 publications were included. These publications primarily originated from 99 countries or regions led by the U.S. and China. Among the contributors, MacKerell AD had the highest number of articles and the greatest influence. The Journal of Medicinal Chemistry was the most cited journal, whereas the Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling had the highest number of publications. CONCLUSIONS: Influential authors in the field were identified. Current research shows active collaboration between countries, institutions, and companies. CADD technologies such as homology modeling, pharmacophore modeling, quantitative conformational relationships, molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation, binding free energy prediction, and high-throughput virtual screening can effectively improve the efficiency of new drug discovery. Artificial intelligence-assisted drug design and screening based on CADD represent key topics that will influence future development. Furthermore, this paper will be helpful in better understanding the frontiers and hotspots of CADD.
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 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.101 | 0.132 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".