Cited by 61Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

Deep learning for low-data drug discovery: Hurdles and opportunities

Open access
van Tilborg, Derek, Brinkmann, Helena, Criscuolo, Emanuele, Rossen, Luke, Özçelik, Rıza, Grisoni, Francesca·2024·Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Deep learning is becoming increasingly relevant in drug discovery, from de novo design to protein structure prediction and synthesis planning. However, it is often challenged by the small data regimes typical of certain drug discovery tasks. In such scenarios, deep learning approaches-which are notoriously 'data-hungry'-might fail to live up to their promise. Developing novel approaches to leverage the power of deep learning in low-data scenarios is sparking great attention, and future developments are expected to propel the field further. This mini-review provides an overview of recent low-data-learning approaches in drug discovery, analyzing their hurdles and advantages. Finally, we venture to provide a forecast of future research directions in low-data learning for 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.sbi.2024.102818

Cites

71 of 71 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

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

2 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Tilborg, D., Brinkmann, H., Criscuolo, E., Rossen, L., Özçelik, R., & Grisoni, F.
Affiliations
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Corresponding author
Grisoni, Francesca
Venue
Current Opinion in Structural Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
86
Pages
102818
ISSN
0959-440X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4395481566
Cited by
61
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 15
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Structural Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Commission (101077879)
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
deep learning, low-data learning, drug discovery, small data regime, de novo drug design, protein structure prediction, synthesis planning, data-efficient machine learning
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Humans, Proteins, Drug Discovery

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