All That Glitters Is Not Gold: Importance of Rigorous Evaluation of Proteochemometric Models
Open accessPublished 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3
Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · Cited by 15,861 · see citing works
Larian Studios Dev Team (2024) · doi:10.1145/3292500.3330701 · Cited by 8,618 · see citing works
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,523 · see citing works
Predicting multiple conformations via sequence clustering and AlphaFold2
Wayment-Steele, H. K., Ojoawo, A., Otten, R., Apitz, J. M., Pitsawong, W., Hömberger, M., Ovchinnikov, S., Colwell, L., & Kern, D. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06832-9 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
Performance of machine-learning scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening.
Wójcikowski, M., Ballester, P. J., & Siedlecki, P. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep46710 · Cited by 364 · see citing works
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
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2025-09-03
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 10239-10252
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- PMC
- PMC12529762
- OpenAlex
- W4413942118
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4
- FWCI
- 2.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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