Makurvet, F. D. Biologics vs. small molecules: drug costs and patient access. Med. Drug Discov. 9, 100075 (2021).
Google Scholar
Midlam, C. Status of Biologic Drugs in Modern Therapeutics-Targeted Therapies vs. Small Molecule Drugs 31–46 (Wiley, 2020).
Liu, Z. et al. An overview of PROTACs: a promising drug discovery paradigm. Mol. Biomed. 3, 46 (2022).
Google Scholar
Dong, G., Ding, Y., He, S. & Sheng, C. Molecular glues for targeted protein degradation: from serendipity to rational discovery. J. Med. Chem. 64, 10606–10620 (2021).
Google Scholar
Scannell, J. W., Blanckley, A., Boldon, H. & Warrington, B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 191–200 (2012).
Google Scholar
Taylor, D. The pharmaceutical industry and the future of drug development. Pharm. Environ. (2015).
Google Scholar
Wouters, O. J., McKee, M. & Luyten, J. Estimated research and development investment needed to bring a new medicine to market, 2009–2018. JAMA 323, 844–853 (2020).
Google Scholar
Blanco-Gonzalez, A. et al. The role of AI in drug discovery: challenges, opportunities, and strategies. Pharmaceuticals 16, 891 (2023).
Google Scholar
Ramesh, A. et al. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning 8821–8831 (PMLR, 2021).
Croitoru, F.-A., Hondru, V., Ionescu, R. T. & Shah, M. Diffusion models in vision: a survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 45, 10850–10869 (2023).
Google Scholar
Bubeck, S. et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: early experiments with GPT4. Preprint at (2023).
Gozalo-Brizuela, R. & Garrido-Merchán, E. C. ChatGPT is not all you need. A State of the Art Review of large generative AI models. GRACE 1, 1 (2023).
Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bertoline, L. M., Lima, A. N., Krieger, J. E. & Teixeira, S. K. Before and after AlphaFold2: an overview of protein structure prediction. Front. Bioinform. 3, 1120370 (2023).
Google Scholar
Lipinski, C. F., Maltarollo, V. G., Oliveira, P. R., Da Silva, A. B. & Honorio, K. M. Advances and perspectives in applying deep learning for drug design and discovery. Front. Robot. AI 6, 108 (2019).
Google Scholar
Reymond, J.-L. The chemical space project. Acc. Chem. Res. 48, 722–730 (2015).
Google Scholar
Meyers, J., Fabian, B. & Brown, N. De novo molecular design and generative models. Drug Discov. Today 26, 2707–2715 (2021).
Google Scholar
Jiang, Y. et al. Artificial intelligence for retrosynthesis prediction. Engineering (2022).
Google Scholar
Sánchez-Cruz, N. Deep graph learning in molecular docking: advances and opportunities. Artif. Intell. Life Sci. 3, 100062 (2023).
Mitchell, JohnB. O. Machine learning methods in chemoinformatics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 4, 468–481 (2014).
Google Scholar
McNutt, A. T. et al. GNINA 1.0: molecular docking with deep learning. J. Cheminform. 13, 43 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zhu, H., Yang, J. & Huang, N. Assessment of the generalization abilities of machine-learning scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 62, 5485–5502 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wallach, I. & Heifets, A. Most ligand-based classification benchmarks reward memorization rather than generalization. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 58, 916–932 (2018).
Google Scholar
Buttenschoen, M., Morris, G. M. & Deane, C. M. PoseBusters: AI-based docking methods fail to generate physically valid poses or generalise to novel sequences. Chem. Sci. 15, 3130–3139 (2024).
Google Scholar
Mokaya, M. et al. Testing the limits of SMILES-based de novo molecular generation with curriculum and deep reinforcement learning. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5, 386–394 (2023).
Google Scholar
Tran-Nguyen, V.-K., Jacquemard, C. & Rognan, D. LIT-PCBA: an unbiased data set for machine learning and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 60, 4263–4273 (2020).
Google Scholar
Torren-Peraire, P. et al. Models matter: the impact of single-step retrosynthesis on synthesis planning. Digit. Discov. 3, 558–572 (2024).
Google Scholar
Ivanenkov, Y. et al. The hitchhiker’s guide to deep learning driven generative chemistry. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 14, 901–915 (2023).
Google Scholar
Handa, K., Thomas, M. C., Kageyama, M., Iijima, T. & Bender, A. On the difficulty of validating molecular generative models realistically: a case study on public and proprietary data. J. Cheminform. 15, 112 (2023).
Google Scholar
Harris, C. et al. PoseCheck: generative models for 3D structure-based drug design produce unrealistic poses. In NeurIPS 2023 Generative AI and Biology (GenBio) Workshop (2023).
Neves, B. J. et al. QSAR-based virtual screening: advances and applications in drug discovery. Front. Pharmacol. 9, 1275 (2018).
Google Scholar
Yan, X. et al. Chemical structure similarity search for ligand-based virtual screening: methods and computational resources. Curr. Drug Targets 17, 1580–1585 (2016).
Google Scholar
Abramson, J. et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature 630, 493–500 (2024).
Google Scholar
Pereira, J. et al. High-accuracy protein structure prediction in CASP14. Proteins 89, 1687–1699 (2021).
Google Scholar
Su, M. et al. Comparative assessment of scoring functions: the CASF-2016 update. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 895–913 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lowe, D. M. Extraction of Chemical Structures and Reactions from the Literature. PhD thesis, Univ. Cambridge (2012).
Wu, Z. et al. MoleculeNet: a benchmark for molecular machine learning. Chem. Sci. 9, 513–530 (2018).
Google Scholar
Mysinger, M. M., Carchia, M., Irwin, J. J. & Shoichet, B. K. Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. J. Med. Chem. 55, 6582–6594 (2012).
Google Scholar
Francoeur, P. G. et al. Three-dimensional convolutional neural networks and a crossdocked data set for structure-based drug design. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 60, 4200–4215 (2020).
Google Scholar
Vaswani, A. et al. Attention is all you need. In Proc. 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 6000–6010 (ACM, 2017).
Kipf, T. N. & Welling, M. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. International Conference of Learning Representations (ICLR) (2017).
Merchant, A. et al. Scaling deep learning for materials discovery. Nature 624, 80–85 (2023).
Google Scholar
Stokes, J. M. et al. A deep learning approach to antibiotic discovery. Cell 180, 688–702.e13 (2020).
Google Scholar
Wong, F. et al. Discovery of a structural class of antibiotics with explainable deep learning. Nature 626, 177–185 (2023).
Google Scholar
Jiang, D. et al. Could graph neural networks learn better molecular representation for drug discovery? A comparison study of descriptor-based and graph-based models. J. Cheminform. 13, 12 (2021).
Google Scholar
Korolev, V., Mitrofanov, A., Korotcov, A. & Tkachenko, V. Graph convolutional neural networks as ‘general-purpose’ property predictors: the universality and limits of applicability. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 60, 22–28 (2020).
Google Scholar
Geiger, M. & Smidt, T. e3nn: Euclidean neural networks. Preprint at (2022).
Satorras, V. G., Hoogeboom, E. & Welling, M. E(n) equivariant graph neural networks. PLMR 139, 9323–9332 (2021).
Scantlebury, J. et al. A small step toward generalizability: training a machine learning scoring function for structure-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 63, 2960–2974 (2023).
Google Scholar
Corso, G. et al. DiffDock: diffusion steps, twists, and turns for molecular docking. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2023).
Igashov, I. et al. Equivariant 3D-conditional diffusion model for molecular linker design. Nat. Mach. Intell. 6, 417–427 (2024).
Google Scholar
Jing, B., Corso, G., Chang, J., Barzilay, R. & Jaakkola, T. Torsional diffusion for molecular conformer generation. In Proc. 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems article no. 1760, 24240–24253 (ACM, 2022).
Schneuing, A. et al. Structure-based drug design with equivariant diffusion models. Preprint at (2022).
Ho, J., Jain, A. & Abbeel, P. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 6840–6851 (2020).
Reed, J., Alterio, B., Coblenz, H., O’Lear, T. & Metz, T. AI image-generation as a teaching strategy in nursing education. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 34, 369–399 (2023).
Yildirim, E. In Art and Architecture: Theory, Practice and Experience 97 (2022).
Azuaje, G. et al. Exploring the use of AI text-to-image generation to downregulate negative emotions in an expressive writing application. R. Soc. Open Sci. 10, 220238 (2023).
Google Scholar
Fishman, N., Klarner, L., Mathieu, E., Hutchinson, M. & De Bortoli, V. Metropolis sampling for constrained diffusion models. In Proc. 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems article no. 2721, 62296–6233 (ACM, 2024).
Song, Y., Dhariwal, P., Chen, M. & Sutskever, I. Consistency models. In International Conference on Machine Learning 32211–32252 (PMLR, 2023).
Lipman, Y., Chen, R. T., Ben-Hamu, H., Nickel, M. & Le, M. Flow matching for generative modeling. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (2022).
Sun, C., Shrivastava, A., Singh, S. & Gupta, A. Revisiting unreasonable effectiveness of data in deep learning era. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision 843–852 (IEEE, 2017).
Betker, J. et al. Improving image generation with better captions. Open AI (2023).
Liu, Z. et al. PDB-wide collection of binding data: current status of the PDBbind database. Bioinformatics 31, 405–412 (2014).
Google Scholar
Rose, P. W. et al. The RCSB protein data bank: integrative view of protein, gene and 3D structural information. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, D271–D281 (2016).
Zdrazil, B. et al. The ChEMBL database in 2023: a drug discovery platform spanning multiple bioactivity data types and time periods. Nucleic Acids Res 52, D1180–D1192 (2024).
Google Scholar
Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C. & Chen, M. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. Preprint at (2022).
Touvron, H. et al. Llama 2: open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. Preprint at (2023).
Baek, M. et al. Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network. Science 373, 871–876 (2021).
Google Scholar
Lin, Z. et al. Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic-level protein structure with a language model. Science 379, 1123–1130 (2023).
Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. L. et al. MGnify: the microbiome analysis resource in 2020. Nucleic Acids Res 48, D570–D578 (2019).
Suzek, B. E., Huang, H., McGarvey, P., Mazumder, R. & Wu, C. H. UniRef: comprehensive and non-redundant UniProt reference clusters. Bioinformatics 23, 1282–1288 (2007).
Google Scholar
Tang, J. et al. Making sense of large-scale kinase inhibitor bioactivity data sets: a comparative and integrative analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 735–743 (2014).
Google Scholar
Huang, R. et al. Tox21challenge to build predictive models of nuclear receptor and stress response pathways as mediated by exposure to environmental chemicals and drugs. Front. Environ. Sci. 3, 85 (2016).
Google Scholar
Voitsitskyi, T. et al. Augmenting a training dataset of the generative diffusion model for molecular docking with artificial binding pockets. RSC Adv. 14, 1341–1353 (2024).
Google Scholar
Volkov, M. et al. On the frustration to predict binding affinities from protein–ligand structures with deep neural networks. J. Med. Chem. 65, 7946–7958 (2022).
Google Scholar
Blundell, T. L. & Patel, S. High-throughput X-ray crystallography for drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 4, 490–496 (2004).
Google Scholar
Polizzi, N. F. & DeGrado, W. F. A defined structural unit enables de novo design of small-molecule-binding proteins. Science 369, 1227–1233 (2020).
Google Scholar
Stark, H., Jing, B., Barzilay, R. & Jaakkola, T. Harmonic prior self-conditioned flow matching for multi-ligand docking and binding site design. In NeurIPS 2023 AI for Science Workshop (2023).
Corso, G., Deng, A., Polizzi, N., Barzilay, R. & Jaakkola, T. The discovery of binding modes requires rethinking docking generalization. In NeurIPS 2023 Generative AI and Biology (GenBio) Workshop (2023).
Liu, L. et al. Pre-training on large-scale generated docking conformations with helixdock to unlock the potential of protein–ligand structure prediction models. Preprint at (2023).
McFee, M. & Kim, P. M. GDockScore: a graph-based protein–protein docking scoring function. Bioinform. Adv. 3, vbad072 (2023).
Google Scholar
Réau, M., Langenfeld, F., Zagury, J.-F., Lagarde, N. & Montes, M. Decoys selection in benchmarking datasets: overview and perspectives. Front. Pharmacol. 9, 11 (2018).
Google Scholar
Strieth-Kalthoff, F. et al. Machine learning for chemical reactivity: the importance of failed experiments. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61, 29 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M. & Šupak Smolčić, V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem. Med. 27, 447–452 (2017).
Google Scholar
McCloskey, K. et al. Machine learning on DNA-encoded libraries: a new paradigm for hit finding. J. Med. Chem. 63, 8857–8866 (2020).
Google Scholar
Maloney, M. P. et al. Negative data in data sets for machine learning training. Org. Lett. 25, 2945–2947 (2023).
Google Scholar
McEwen, L. & Mustafa, F. Worldfair chemistry: making IUPAC assets fair. Chem. Int. 45, 14–17 (2023).
Google Scholar
Steinbeck, C. et al. NFDI4chem—towards a national research data infrastructure for chemistry in Germany. Res. Ideas Outcomes 6, e55852 (2020).
Google Scholar
Segler, M. H., Preuss, M. & Waller, M. P. Planning chemical syntheses with deep neural networks and symbolic AI. Nature 555, 604–610 (2018).
Google Scholar
Ball, P. Computer gleans chemical insight from lab notebook failures. Nature (2016).
Google Scholar
Swain, M. C. & Cole, J. M. ChemDataExtractor: a toolkit for automated extraction of chemical information from the scientific literature. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56, 1894–1904 (2016).
Google Scholar
Rajan, K., Brinkhaus, H. O., Agea, M. I., Zielesny, A. & Steinbeck, C. DECIMER.ai: an open platform for automated optical chemical structure identification, segmentation and recognition in scientific publications. Nat. Commun. 14, 5045 (2023).
Google Scholar
Blecher, L., Cucurull, G., Scialom, T. & Stojnic, R. Nougat: neural optical understanding for academic documents. Preprint at (2023).
Chodera, J., Lee, A. A., London, N. & von Delft, F. Crowdsourcing drug discovery for pandemics. Nat. Chem. 12, 581 (2020).
Google Scholar
The COVID Moonshot Consortium. COVID Moonshot: open science discovery of SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors by combining crowdsourcing, high-throughput experiments, computational simulations, and machine learning. Preprint at bioRxiv (2020).
Boby, M. L. et al. Open science discovery of potent noncovalent SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors. Science 382, eabo7201 (2023).
Hanser, T. Federated learning for molecular discovery. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 79, 102545 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hanser, T. et al. Using privacy-preserving federated learning to enable pre-competitive cross-industry knowledge sharing and improve QSAR models. In Society of Toxicology (SOT) Annual Meeting (2022).
Wang, R., Chaudhari, P. & Davatzikos, C. Bias in machine learning models can be significantly mitigated by careful training: evidence from neuroimaging studies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2211613120 (2023).
Google Scholar
Van Giffen, B., Herhausen, D. & Fahse, T. Overcoming the pitfalls and perils of algorithms: a classification of machine learning biases and mitigation methods. J. Bus. Res. 144, 93–106 (2022).
Google Scholar
Leavy, S. Gender bias in artificial intelligence: the need for diversity and gender theory in machine learning. In Proc. 1st International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering 14–16 (2018).
Lee, N. T. Detecting racial bias in algorithms and machine learning. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 16, 252–260 (2018).
Google Scholar
Subramanian, G., Ramsundar, B., Pande, V. & Denny, R. A. Computational modeling of β-secretase 1 (BACE-1) inhibitors using ligand based approaches. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56, 1936–1949 (2016).
Google Scholar
Martins, I. F., Teixeira, A. L., Pinheiro, L. & Falcao, A. O. A Bayesian approach to in silico blood–brain barrier penetration modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52, 1686–1697 (2012).
Google Scholar
Delaney, J. S. ESOL: estimating aqueous solubility directly from molecular structure. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44, 1000–1005 (2004).
Google Scholar
Xie, Y., Xu, Z., Ma, J. & Mei, Q. How much space has been explored? Measuring the chemical space covered by databases and machine-generated molecules. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (2022).
Thakkar, A. et al. Unbiasing retrosynthesis language models with disconnection prompts. ACS Cent. Sci. 9, 1488–1498 (2023).
Google Scholar
Cleves, A. E. & Jain, A. N. Effects of inductive bias on computational evaluations of ligand-based modeling and on drug discovery. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 22, 147–159 (2008).
Google Scholar
Chen, L. et al. Hidden bias in the DUD-E dataset leads to misleading performance of deep learning in structure-based virtual screening. PLoS ONE 14, e0220113 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sieg, J., Flachsenberg, F. & Rarey, M. In need of bias control: evaluating chemical data for machine learning in structure-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 947–961 (2019).
Google Scholar
Jacobsson, M. & Karlén, A. Ligand bias of scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 1334–1343 (2006).
Google Scholar
Chaput, L., Martinez-Sanz, J., Saettel, N. & Mouawad, L. Benchmark of four popular virtual screening programs: construction of the active/decoy dataset remains a major determinant of measured performance. J. Cheminform. 8, 56 (2016).
Google Scholar
Jiang, D. et al. Interactiongraphnet: a novel and efficient deep graph representation learning framework for accurate protein–ligand interaction predictions. J. Med. Chem. 64, 18209–18232 (2021).
Google Scholar
Shen, C. et al. A generalized protein–ligand scoring framework with balanced scoring, docking, ranking and screening powers. Chem. Sci. 14, 8129–8146 (2023).
Google Scholar
Farahani, A., Voghoei, S., Rasheed, K. & Arabnia, H. R. A brief review of domain adaptation. Advances in Data Science and Information Engineering: Proc. ICDATA 2020 and IKE 2020 877–894 (2021).
Han, X., Baldwin, T. & Cohn, T. Towards equal opportunity fairness through adversarial learning. Preprint at (2022).
Shao, S., Ziser, Y. & Cohen, S. B. Gold doesn’t always glitter: spectral removal of linear and nonlinear guarded attribute information. In The 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics 1611–1622 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023).
Klarner, L. et al. Drug discovery under covariate shift with domain-informed prior distributions over functions. In Proc. 40th International Conference on Machine Learning article no. 706, 17176–17197 (ACM, 2023).
Kramer, C., Beck, B., Kriegl, J. M. & Clark, T. A composite model for hERG blockade. ChemMedChem 3, 254–265 (2008).
Google Scholar
Kausar, S. & Falcao, A. O. An automated framework for QSAR model building. J. Cheminform. (2018).
Simeon, S. & Jongkon, N. Construction of quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict potency of structurally diversed Janus kinase 2 inhibitors. Molecules 24, 4393 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kalliokoski, T., Kramer, C., Vulpetti, A. & Gedeck, P. Comparability of mixed IC50 data—a statistical analysis. PLoS ONE 8, e61007 (2013).
Google Scholar
Kramer, C., Kalliokoski, T., Gedeck, P. & Vulpetti, A. The experimental uncertainty of heterogeneous public Ki data. J. Med. Chem. 55, 5165–5173 (2012).
Google Scholar
Landrum, G. A. & Riniker, S. Combining IC50 or Ki values from different sources is a source of significant noise. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 64, 1560–1567 (2024).
Google Scholar
Hernández-Garrido, C. A. & Sánchez-Cruz, N. Experimental uncertainty in training data for protein–ligand binding affinity prediction models. Artif. Intell. Life Sci. 4, 100087 (2023).
Speck-Planche, A. & Kleandrova, V. V. Multi-condition QSAR model for the virtual design of chemicals with dual pan-antiviral and anti-cytokine storm profiles. ACS Omega 7, 32119–32130 (2022).
Google Scholar
Baell, J. B. & Nissink, J. W. M. Seven year itch: pan-assay interference compounds (PAINs) in 2017 utility and limitations. ACS Chem. Biol. 13, 36–44 (2018).
Google Scholar
Brenk, R. et al. Lessons learnt from assembling screening libraries for drug discovery for neglected diseases. ChemMedChem 3, 435–444 (2008).
Google Scholar
Jadhav, A. et al. Quantitative analyses of aggregation, autofluorescence, and reactivity artifacts in a screen for inhibitors of a thiol protease. J. Med. Chem. 53, 37–51 (2010).
Google Scholar
Walters, P. We need better benchmarks for machine learning in drug discovery. Practical Cheminformatics Blog (2023).
Klarner, L., Reutlinger, M., Schindler, T., Deane, C. & Morris, G. Bias in the benchmark: systematic experimental errors in bioactivity databases confound multi-task and meta-learning algorithms. In ICML 2022 2nd AI for Science Workshop (2022).
Wigh, D. S., Arrowsmith, J., Pomberger, A., Felton, K. C. & Lapkin, A. A. Orderly: data sets and benchmarks for chemical reaction data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 64, 3790–3798 (2024).
Google Scholar
Durant, G., Boyles, F., Birchall, K., Marsden, B. & Deane, C. Robustly interrogating machine learning based scoring functions: what are they learning? Preprint at bioRxiv (2023).
Li, S. et al. Structure-aware interactive graph neural networks for the prediction of protein–ligand binding affinity. In KDD21: Proc. 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (ACM, 2021).
Wójcikowski, M., Kukiełka, M., Stepniewska-Dziubinska, M. M. & Siedlecki, P. Development of a protein–ligand extended connectivity (PLEC) fingerprint and its application for binding affinity predictions. Bioinformatics 35, 1334–1341 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wang, Z. et al. OnionNet-2: a convolutional neural network model for predicting protein–ligand binding affinity based on residue-atom contacting shells. Front. Chem. 9, 913 (2021).
Browne, C. B. et al. A survey of Monte Carlo tree search methods. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 4, 1–43 (2012).
Google Scholar
Huang, K. et al. Therapeutics data commons: machine learning datasets and tasks for drug discovery and development. Preprint at (2021).
Gan, J. L. et al. Benchmarking ensemble docking methods in D3R Grand Challenge 4. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 36, 87–99 (2022).
Google Scholar
Ackloo, S. et al. CACHE (critical assessment of computational hit-finding experiments): a public–private partnership benchmarking initiative to enable the development of computational methods for hit-finding. Nat. Rev. Chem. 6, 287–295 (2022).
Google Scholar
link