Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39906313›Full record

ReviewRSC medicinal chemistry2025

The physics-AI dialogue in drug design.

Pablo Andrés Vargas-Rosales, Amedeo Caflisch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in RSC medicinal chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Pablo Andrés Vargas-RosalesDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Zurich Winterthurerstrasse 190 8057 Zürich Switzerland caflisch@bioc.uzh.ch.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5198-620X
Amedeo CaflischDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Zurich Winterthurerstrasse 190 8057 Zürich Switzerland caflisch@bioc.uzh.ch.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2317-6792

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A long path has led from the determination of the first protein structure in 1960 to the recent breakthroughs in protein science. Protein structure prediction and design methodologies based on machine learning (ML) have been recognized with the 2024 Nobel prize in Chemistry, but they would not have been possible without previous work and the input of many domain scientists. Challenges remain in the application of ML tools for the prediction of structural ensembles and their usage within the software pipelines for structure determination by crystallography or cryogenic electron microscopy. In the drug discovery workflow, ML techniques are being used in diverse areas such as scoring of docked poses, or the generation of molecular descriptors. As the ML techniques become more widespread, novel applications emerge which can profit from the large amounts of data available. Nevertheless, it is essential to balance the potential advantages against the environmental costs of ML deployment to decide if and when it is best to apply it. For hit to lead optimization ML tools can efficiently interpolate between compounds in large chemical series but free energy calculations by molecular dynamics simulations seem to be superior for designing novel derivatives. Importantly, the potential complementarity and/or synergism of physics-based methods (

Identifiers

PMID39906313
PMCPMC11788922

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.