Toni Mey
banner
ppxasjsm.bsky.social
Toni Mey
@ppxasjsm.bsky.social
Senior lecturer in Computational Biophysics @ University of Edinburgh molecular simulations, machine learning and baking enthusiasts. Occasional mathematics outreach
Rohan has done fantastic work on machine learning for binding affinity predictions and active learning. Check out his papers here: pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10....

pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10....

and

www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
Benchmarking Active Learning Protocols for Ligand-Binding Affinity Prediction
Active learning (AL) has become a powerful tool in computational drug discovery, enabling the identification of top binders from vast molecular libraries. To design a robust AL protocol, it is important to understand the influence of AL parameters, as well as the features of the data sets on the outcomes. We use four affinity data sets for different targets (TYK2, USP7, D2R, Mpro) to systematically evaluate the performance of machine learning models [Gaussian process (GP) model and Chemprop model], sample selection protocols, and the batch size based on metrics describing the overall predictive power of the model (R2, Spearman rank, root-mean-square error) as well as the accurate identification of top 2%/5% binders (Recall, F1 score). Both models have a comparable Recall of top binders on large data sets, but the GP model surpasses the Chemprop model when training data are sparse. A larger initial batch size, especially on diverse data sets, increased the Recall of both models as well as overall correlation metrics. However, for subsequent cycles, smaller batch sizes of 20 or 30 compounds proved to be desirable. Furthermore, adding artificial Gaussian noise to the data up to a certain threshold still allowed the model to identify clusters with top-scoring compounds. However, excessive noise (<1σ) did impact the model’s predictive and exploitative capabilities.
pubs.acs.org
January 23, 2025 at 7:10 PM
JOSS if the software is open source!
January 1, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Looks like an RDkit visualisation?
December 14, 2024 at 10:46 AM
I have definitely suggested to authors of papers I have reviewed to find a chemist to talk to before presenting molecules.
December 14, 2024 at 10:45 AM
Probably part of some conference proceeding?
December 13, 2024 at 11:40 AM
Seems the issue is there are two different objectives. 1. DL community wants to show they are better than a not very well thought out benchmark, often not with basic significance testing on bold numbers 2. Users realises the DL benchmark has nothing to do with the use case.
December 7, 2024 at 2:26 PM
I am almost disappointed now
December 1, 2024 at 4:38 PM
Wait what?
December 1, 2024 at 3:12 PM
Yep and I keep blocking them and for a brief period tried the ‘unsubscribe’ option, just wondering how I could teach my spam filter that I don’t want these!
November 30, 2024 at 9:18 AM
If there is still room I would love to be added!
November 21, 2024 at 4:16 PM