It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been widely applied in drug discovery with a major task as molecular property prediction. Despite booming techniques in molecular representation learning, key elements underlying molecular property prediction remain largely unexplored, which impedes further advancements in this field. Herein, we conduct an extensive evaluation of representative models using various representations on the MoleculeNet datasets, a suite of opioids-related datasets and two additional activity datasets from the literature. To investigate the predictive power in low-data and high-data space, a series of descriptors datasets of varying sizes are also assembled to evaluate the models. In total, we have trained 62,820 models, including 50,220 models on fixed representations, 4200 models on SMILES sequences and 8400 models on molecular graphs. Based on extensive experimentation and rigorous comparison, we show that representation learning models exhibit limited performance in molecular property prediction in most datasets. Besides, multiple key elements underlying molecular property prediction can affect the evaluation results. Furthermore, we show that activity cliffs can significantly impact model prediction. Finally, we explore into potential causes why representation learning models can fail and show that dataset size is essential for representation learning models to excel.
AI has become a crucial tool for drug discovery, but how to properly represent molecules for data-driven property prediction is still an open question. Here the authors evaluate 62,820 models to highlight existing challenges, the impact of activity cliffs, and the crucial role of dataset size.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 Stony Brook University, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Stony Brook, USA (GRID:grid.36425.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2216 9681)
2 Stony Brook University, Department of Computer Science, Stony Brook, USA (GRID:grid.36425.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2216 9681)
3 Stony Brook University, Department of Chemistry, Stony Brook, USA (GRID:grid.36425.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2216 9681)
4 Stony Brook University, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Stony Brook, USA (GRID:grid.36425.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2216 9681); Stony Brook University, Department of Computer Science, Stony Brook, USA (GRID:grid.36425.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2216 9681)