Cited by 59Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

Uncertainty quantification: Can we trust artificial intelligence in drug discovery?

Open access
Yu, Jie, Wang, Dingyan, Zheng, Mingyue·2022·iScience

Abstract

The problem of human trust is one of the most fundamental problems in applied artificial intelligence in drug discovery. In silico models have been widely used to accelerate the process of drug discovery in recent years. However, most of these models can only give reliable predictions within a limited chemical space that the training set covers (applicability domain). Predictions of samples falling outside the applicability domain are unreliable and sometimes dangerous for the drug-design decision-making process. Uncertainty quantification accordingly has drawn great attention to enable autonomous drug designing. By quantifying the confidence level of model predictions, the reliability of the predictions can be quantitatively represented to assist researchers in their molecular reasoning and experimental design. Here we summarize the state-of-the-art approaches to uncertainty quantification and underline how they can be used for drug design and discovery projects. Furthermore, we also outline four representative application scenarios of uncertainty quantification in drug discovery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104814

Cites

80 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yu, J., Wang, D., & Zheng, M.
Affiliations
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Corresponding author
Zheng, Mingyue
Venue
iScience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-08
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
104814
ISSN
2589-0042 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4286508612
Cited by
59
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • iScience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81903639)
  • Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
Keywords
uncertainty quantification, drug discovery, artificial intelligence, applicability domain, prediction confidence, in silico models, model reliability, trust in AI

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review