A quantitative model of structure-based virtual screening performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent studies, large library docking has predicted novel ligands with high “hit-rates” (number active/number experimentally tested) when chosen from molecules top-ranked in the screen. Our focus on hit-rates reflects the wide-spread view that while docking can succeed as a loose classifier, distinguishing likely ligands from non-binders, its scores do not meaningfully relate to affinity owing to well-known weaknesses in docking scoring functions. Here, we investigate this by analyzing large-scale experiments for three docking campaigns, where 2,544 ligands were synthesized and tested across the scoring landscape (poor scores, mediocre scores, high scores). We find that the observed experimental hit-rate curves can be accurately reproduced by a simple bivariate normal distribution model, where dock score is interpreted as a noisy predictor of binding free energy. To account for the plateauing and subsequent drop in hit-rates often seen at highly favorable docking scores, we add a term for high-ranking docking artifacts, a well-documented phenomenon observed across targets. From this simple model, three predictions emerge. First, while the model anticipates the improved hit rates and affinities as libraries have grown into the billions of molecules, it also predicts that even slight improvements in scoring accuracy would substantially improve both hit-rates and hit affinities; equivalent hit-rates could also be achieved with smaller libraries if scoring functions were improved. Second, while the nature and prevalence of artifacts is hard to anticipate, left unconsidered they can come to dominate top-scoring lists as the libraries grow. This emphasizes the importance of physically testing molecules across a range of log-normalized ranks (here called pProp) to identify the peak hit-rate of the docking model. Third, the virtual library’s intrinsic hit-rate, reflecting the percentage of molecules that would be active if all were tested, has a large impact on docking performance. Thus, pre-filtering a library for molecules with even grossly appropriate features (e.g., charge, hydrophobicity) can meaningfully boost performance with tera-scale libraries. These predictions are consistent with observations from ultra-large library docking to date, and can help us optimize future work to improve and understand results.
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 | 0.014 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".