On the application of artificial intelligence in virtual screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative tool in drug discovery, particularly in virtual screening (VS), a crucial initial step in identifying potential drug candidates. This article highlights the significance of AI in revolutionizing both ligand-based virtual screening (LBVS) and structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) approaches, streamlining and enhancing the drug discovery process. AREAS COVERED: The authors provide an overview of AI applications in drug discovery, with a focus on LBVS and SBVS approaches utilized in prospective cases where new bioactive molecules were identified and experimentally validated. Discussion includes the use of AI in quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling for LBVS, as well as its role in enhancing SBVS techniques such as molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations. The article is based on literature searches on studies published up to March 2025. EXPERT OPINION: AI is rapidly transforming VS in drug discovery, by leveraging increasing amounts of experimental data and expanding its scalability. These innovations promise to enhance efficiency and precision across both LBVS and SBVS approaches, yet challenges such as data curation, rigorous and prospective validation of new models, and efficient integration with experimental methods remain critical for realizing AI's full potential in 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".