The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exposing the limitations of molecular machine learning with activity cliffs.
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01073 · Paper page
Abstract
Machine learning has become a crucial tool in drug discovery and chemistry at large, e.g., to predict molecular properties, such as bioactivity, with high accuracy. However, activity cliffs – pairs of molecules that are highly similar in their structure but exhibit large differences in potency – have been underinvestigated for their effect on model performance. Not only are these edge cases informative for molecule discovery and optimization, but models that are well-equipped to accurately predict the potency of activity cliffs have an increased potential for prospective applications. Our work aims to fill the current knowledge gap on best-practice machine learning methods in the presence of activity cliffs. We benchmarked a total of 720 machine and deep learning models on curated bioactivity data from 30 macromolecular targets for their performance on activity cliff compounds. While all methods struggled in the presence of activity cliffs, machine learning approaches based on molecular descriptors outperformed more complex deep learning methods. Our findings highlight large case-by-case differences in performance, advocating for (a) the inclusion of dedicated “activity-cliff-centered” metrics during model development and evaluation, and (b) the development of novel algorithms to better predict the properties of activity cliffs. To this end, the methods, metrics, and results of this study have been encapsulated into an open-access benchmarking platform named MoleculeACE (Activity Cliff Estimation, available on GitHub at: https://github.com/molML/MoleculeACE). MoleculeACE is designed to steer the community towards addressing the pressing but overlooked limitation of molecular machine learning models posed by activity cliffs.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
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
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- van Tilborg, D., Alenicheva, A., & Grisoni, F.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- JetBrains Research. Saint Petersburg, Russia.
- Corresponding author
- Grisoni, Francesca
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2022-08-30
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 5938-5951
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9749029
- OpenAlex
- W4310603653
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 100 · 2025: 114 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 9
- FWCI
- 32.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
- Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht
- JetBrains Research
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- activity cliffs, molecular machine learning, bioactivity prediction, molecular descriptors, deep learning, model benchmarking, drug discovery
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Algorithms, Models, Molecular, Structure-Activity Relationship, 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