Cited by 1,063Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials Science

Drug discovery with explainable artificial intelligence

Open access
Jiménez-Luna, José, Grisoni, Francesca, Schneider, Gisbert·2020·Nature Machine Intelligence

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 · 10.1038/s42256-020-00236-4

Cites

210 of 210 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?

  • Modern algorithms such as transformer models have been applied to identify relevant atoms in a ligand or to pinpoint important residues in a protein binding site.

    “Modern algorithms such as “transformer models”, which have found tremendous success in the field of natural language processing and computer vision, have been applied to identify relevant atoms in a ligand or to pinpoint important residues in a protein binding site.274”

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Goebel, R. et al. Explainable AI: the new 42? In Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction. CD-MAKE 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 11015 (eds Holzinger, A., Kieseberg, P., Tjoa, A. & Weippl, E) (Springer, 2018).
  2. Chander, A., Srinivasan, R., Chelian, S., Wang, J. & Uchino, K. Working with beliefs: AI transparency in the enterprise. In Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI 2018 Workshops co-located with the 23rd ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces 2068 (eds Said, A. & Komatsu, T.) (CEUR-WS.org, 2018).
  3. Baldassarre, F. & Azizpour, H. Explainability techniques for graph convolutional networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) Workshops, 2019 Workshop on Learning and Reasoning with Graph-Structured Representations (ICML, 2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jiménez-Luna, J., Grisoni, F., & Schneider, G.
Affiliations
ETH Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Schneider, Gisbert
Venue
Nature Machine Intelligence
Published
2020-10-13
Volume
2
Issue
10
Pages
573-584
ISSN
2522-5839 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3039995705
Cited by
1,063
References
210
Citations by year
2026: 202 · 2025: 201 · 2024: 219 · 2023: 203 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 98 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
43.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (205321_182176)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
Keywords
explainable AI, drug discovery, deep learning interpretability, molecular structure prediction, molecular property prediction

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