ChemBounce: a computational framework for scaffold hopping in drug discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Scaffold hopping is a critical strategy in medicinal chemistry for generating novel and patentable drug candidates. Here, we present ChemBounce, a computational framework designed to facilitate scaffold hopping by generating structurally diverse scaffolds with high synthetic accessibility. Given a user-supplied molecule in SMILES format, ChemBounce identifies the core scaffolds and replaces them using a curated in-house library of over 3 million fragments derived from the ChEMBL database. The generated compounds are evaluated based on Tanimoto and electron shape similarities to ensure retention of pharmacophores and potential biological activity. By enabling systematic exploration of unexplored chemical space, ChemBounce represents a valuable tool for hit expansion and lead optimization in modern drug discovery. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The source code for ChemBounce is available at https://github.com/jyryu3161/chembounce. In addition, a cloud-based implementation of ChemBounce is available as a Google Colaboratory notebook.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".