Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41836753›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2026

An efficient computational chemistry approach to generating negative data for drug discovery pipeline validation.

Stefan M Ivanov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. In Silico Isomerization Produces Apt Negative Data for VHTS Validation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

1 author.

Stefan M IvanovFaculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern virtual high-throughput screening (VHTS) pipelines can be suboptimally validated, with no rigorous studies conclusively demonstrating that every one of their steps reliably adds increasing enrichment atop the baseline random hit rate. Moreover, what little benchmarking studies are available primarily focus on the docking aspect of the pipelines, which is usually only the beginning or near the beginning, and even there, authors tend to use flawed data sets that artificially inflate performance metrics. Herein, we present an alternative method to pipeline validation and data set generation that requires no additional experimental work and expenditure, yet offers vast amounts of negative data that can be used in VHTS pipeline validation. By randomizing ligands across published experimental structures and generating structural isomers of known binders, practically unlimited amounts of negative data can be generated. Such sets of positive and negative data points match closely in key molecular properties and are well suited to pipeline validation. Once such sets are generated, they are to be run through any proposed pipeline, assessing performance at every step. We stress the importance of using negative data of adequate quality and quantity in validation studies to definitively and verifiably demonstrate the utility of a given tool or workflow. Our goal is to help distinguish tools and pipelines that truly accelerate hit discovery and lead optimization from ones that promise to do so but actually do not, whereupon academia and industry can begin to tackle the many unaddressed medical needs of the 21st century.

Indexed as

cheminformaticsgninaMM-PBSAmolecular dockingmolecular dynamics simulationnegative datarecovery plotsVHTS

Identifiers

PMID41836753
PMCPMC12982188

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.