MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394680352 · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2024.102812

Emerging structure-based computational methods to screen the exploding accessible chemical space

2024· article· en· W4394680352 on OpenAlexafffund
Corentin Bedart, Conrad V. Simoben, Matthieu Schapira

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Structural Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenentechEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsUniversity of TorontoOntario Genomics InstituteMerck KGaAMitacsOntario GenomicsGenome CanadaMcGill UniversityBayerPfizerBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsChemical spaceVirtual screeningComputer sciencePopularityData scienceSpace (punctuation)NanotechnologyDrug discoveryBioinformaticsBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structure-based virtual screening can be a valuable approach to computationally select hit candidates based on their predicted interaction with a protein of interest. The recent explosion in the size of chemical libraries increases the chances of hitting high-quality compounds during virtual screening exercises but also poses new challenges as the number of chemically accessible molecules grows faster than the computing power necessary to screen them. We review here two novel approaches rapidly gaining in popularity to address this problem: machine learning-accelerated and synthon-based library screening. We summarize the results from seminal proof-of-concept studies, highlight the latest developments, and discuss limitations and future directions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Structural BiologySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207