MultiRankDTA: A Hybrid Ranking Framework for Robust and Generalizable Drug-Target Affinity Prediction
Abstract
Predicting drug-target affinity (DTA) is essential for screening candidate compounds in early-stage drug discovery. However, most existing computational methods formulate DTA prediction as a regression task, leading to an objective mismatch with the practical need to rank and prioritize candidate compounds based on their relative binding strengths. Moreover, existing ranking-based methods often adopt a fixed ranking objective or scoring function, which may limit their flexibility when they are applied to diverse drug-target interaction scenarios. To address these challenges, we propose MultiRankDTA, a novel framework that formulates DTA prediction as a multilevel ranking task to better align with the practical goal of drug screening. By integrating pointwise, pairwise, and listwise ranking strategies through a mixture-of-experts (MoE) module, MultiRankDTA enables dynamic and adaptive compound prioritization. Furthermore, we introduce a fusion network to reduce data set-specific biases by leveraging auxiliary supervision from multiple sources. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MultiRankDTA achieves superior performance compared to state-of-the-art computational methods across multiple benchmark data sets and delivers strong results on an independent benchmark for virtual screening, indicating its potential for generalization and practical utility. The source code can be obtained at https://github.com/CSUBioGroup/MultiRankDTA.
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
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
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Huang, Q., Wu, Y., Wang, L., Lin, J., Li, Y., Zeng, M., & Li, M.
- Affiliations
- Central South University (CN)
- Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zeng, Min
- Li, Min
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2026-09-28
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 12291-12304
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W7214588855
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Central South University (1053320251390)
- Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2025JJ30025)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62225209)
- National Science and Technology Major Project (2026ZD0125300)
- 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
- drug-target affinity prediction, mixture of experts, pairwise ranking, listwise ranking, compound prioritization, virtual screening, fusion network, early drug discovery
- MeSH terms
- Prediction Algorithms, 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