Cited by 4Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

All That Glitters Is Not Gold: Importance of Rigorous Evaluation of Proteochemometric Models

Open access
Avdiunina, Polina, Jamal, Shamieraah, Gusev, Filipp, Isayev, Olexandr·2025·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Proteochemometric models (PCMs) are used in computational drug discovery to employ both protein and ligand representations jointly for bioactivity prediction. While machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have come to dominate PCMs, often serving as a basis for scoring functions, rigorous evaluation standards have not always been consistently applied. In this study, using kinase-ligand bioactivity prediction as a model system, we highlight the critical roles of data set curation, permutation testing, class imbalances, and various data splitting strategies for mitigating plausible data leakage and embedding quality in determining model performance. Our findings indicate that data splitting and class imbalances are the most critical factors affecting PCM performance, emphasizing the challenges in the generalizing ability of ML/DL-PCMs. We evaluated various protein-ligand descriptors and embeddings, including those augmented with multiple sequence alignment information. However, permutation testing consistently demonstrated that protein embeddings contributed minimally to PCM efficacy. This study advocates for the adoption of stringent evaluation standards to enhance the generalizability of models to out-of-distribution data and improve benchmarking practices.

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 · 10.1021/acs.jcim.5c00395

Cites

6 of 6 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

Authors
Avdiunina, P., Jamal, S., Gusev, F., & Isayev, O.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Isayev, Olexandr
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2025-09-03
Volume
65
Issue
19
Pages
10239-10252
ISSN
  • 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-960X
OpenAlex
W4413942118
Cited by
4
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (CHE-2154447)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
Keywords
bioactivity prediction, data leakage, class imbalance, permutation tests, protein embeddings, multiple sequence alignment, model generalization, benchmarking, scoring functions
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Ligands, 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