Assigning confidence to molecular property prediction
暂无分享,去创建一个
AkshatKumar Nigam | Matteo Aldeghi | Al'an Aspuru-Guzik | Vincent A. Voelz | Riley J. Hickman | Seyone Chithrananda | Naruki Yoshikawa | Matthew F. D. Hurley | Robert Pollice | Alán Aspuru-Guzik | AkshatKumar Nigam | N. Yoshikawa | Matteo Aldeghi | R. Pollice | Seyone Chithrananda
[1] Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al. Data-Driven Strategies for Accelerated Materials Design , 2021, Accounts of chemical research.
[2] Sagi Eppel,et al. Deep Molecular Dreaming: Inverse machine learning for de-novo molecular design and interpretability with surjective representations , 2020, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol..
[3] Gabriel dos Passos Gomes,et al. Beyond generative models: superfast traversal, optimization, novelty, exploration and discovery (STONED) algorithm for molecules using SELFIES , 2020, Chemical science.
[4] Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli,et al. Molecular machine learning with conformer ensembles , 2020, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol..
[5] B. L. de Groot,et al. Non-equilibrium approach for binding free energies in cyclodextrins in SAMPL7: force fields and software , 2020, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.
[6] Xavier Barril,et al. Extended connectivity interaction features: improving binding affinity prediction through chemical description , 2020, Bioinform..
[7] Piero Procacci,et al. Methodological uncertainties in drug-receptor binding free energy predictions based on classical molecular dynamics. , 2020, Current opinion in structural biology.
[8] D. Mobley,et al. Challenges Encountered Applying Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Binding Free Energy Calculations. , 2020, The journal of physical chemistry. B.
[9] Marie L. Laury,et al. AMOEBA binding free energies for the SAMPL7 TrimerTrip host–guest challenge , 2020, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.
[10] Yurii S Moroz,et al. ZINC20 - A Free Ultralarge-Scale Chemical Database for Ligand Discovery , 2020, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[11] Maho Nakata,et al. PubChemQC PM6: Data Sets of 221 Million Molecules with Optimized Molecular Geometries and Electronic Properties , 2020, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[12] Ola Spjuth,et al. Predicting with confidence: Using conformal prediction in drug discovery. , 2020, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.
[13] Brian Hie,et al. Leveraging Uncertainty in Machine Learning Accelerates Biological Discovery and Design. , 2020, Cell systems.
[14] Murat Cihan Sorkun,et al. Pushing the limits of solubility prediction via quality-oriented data selection , 2020, iScience.
[15] Henry B. Moss,et al. Gaussian Process Molecule Property Prediction with FlowMO , 2020, ArXiv.
[16] B. L. de Groot,et al. On the importance of statistics in molecular simulations for thermodynamics, kinetics and simulation box size , 2020, eLife.
[17] Niels Hansen,et al. Combining Molecular Dynamics and Machine Learning to Predict Self-Solvation Free Energies and Limiting Activity Coefficients , 2020, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[18] R. Viola,et al. Discovery of Novel Inhibitors of a Critical Brain Enzyme Using a Homology Model and a Deep Convolutional Neural Network. , 2020, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[19] Youjun Xu,et al. Transfer Learning for Drug Discovery. , 2020, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[20] Woody Sherman,et al. Rigorous Free Energy Simulations in Virtual Screening , 2020, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[21] Regina Barzilay,et al. Uncertainty Quantification Using Neural Networks for Molecular Property Prediction , 2020, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[22] Artem Cherkasov,et al. QSAR without borders. , 2020, Chemical Society reviews.
[23] Avid M. Afzal,et al. A Bayesian neural network for toxicity prediction , 2020, bioRxiv.
[24] Barbara Pernici,et al. Evaluating Scalable Uncertainty Estimation Methods for Deep Learning-Based Molecular Property Prediction , 2020, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[25] David L. Mobley,et al. Assessing the accuracy of octanol–water partition coefficient predictions in the SAMPL6 Part II log P Challenge , 2020, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.
[26] Jincai Yang,et al. Predicting or Pretending: Artificial Intelligence for Protein-Ligand Interactions Lack of Sufficiently Large and Unbiased Datasets , 2020, Frontiers in Pharmacology.
[27] Andrew E. Brereton,et al. Predicting drug properties with parameter-free machine learning: pareto-optimal embedded modeling (POEM) , 2020, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol..
[28] Alison J. Foster,et al. Predicting Drug-Induced Liver Injury with Bayesian Machine Learning. , 2019, Chemical research in toxicology.
[29] Eric J. Deeds,et al. Machine learning classification can reduce false positives in structure-based virtual screening , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[30] Rommie E. Amaro,et al. D3R grand challenge 4: blind prediction of protein–ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies , 2019, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.
[31] B. L. de Groot,et al. Large scale relative protein ligand binding affinities using non-equilibrium alchemy , 2019, Chemical science.
[32] Pedro J. Ballester,et al. Selecting machine-learning scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening. , 2019, Drug discovery today. Technologies.
[33] Shae-Lynn J Lahey,et al. Simulating protein–ligand binding with neural network potentials† , 2019, Chemical science.
[34] G. Hunault,et al. Dataset’s chemical diversity limits the generalizability of machine learning predictions , 2019, Journal of Cheminformatics.
[35] Willem Waegeman,et al. Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: an introduction to concepts and methods , 2019, Machine Learning.
[36] Denis Fourches,et al. Inductive transfer learning for molecular activity prediction: Next-Gen QSAR Models with MolPMoFiT , 2019, Journal of Cheminformatics.
[37] Joseph A Morrone,et al. Combining Docking Pose Rank and Structure with Deep Learning Improves Protein-Ligand Binding Mode Prediction over a Baseline Docking Approach , 2019, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[38] Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al. Augmenting Genetic Algorithms with Deep Neural Networks for Exploring the Chemical Space , 2019, ICLR.
[39] Andreas Bender,et al. Concepts and Applications of Conformal Prediction in Computational Drug Discovery , 2019, ArXiv.
[40] Murat Cihan Sorkun,et al. AqSolDB, a curated reference set of aqueous solubility and 2D descriptors for a diverse set of compounds , 2019, Scientific Data.
[41] Yaoqi Zhou,et al. DLIGAND2: an improved knowledge-based energy function for protein–ligand interactions using the distance-scaled, finite, ideal-gas reference state , 2019, Journal of Cheminformatics.
[42] Seongok Ryu,et al. A Bayesian graph convolutional network for reliable prediction of molecular properties with uncertainty quantification , 2019, Chemical science.
[43] Yao Zhang,et al. Bayesian semi-supervised learning for uncertainty-calibrated prediction of molecular properties and active learning. , 2019 .
[44] O. Engkvist,et al. A de novo molecular generation method using latent vector based generative adversarial network , 2019, J. Cheminformatics.
[45] Pascal Friederich,et al. Self-referencing embedded strings (SELFIES): A 100% robust molecular string representation , 2019, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol..
[46] F. S. Costabal,et al. Machine learning in drug development: Characterizing the effect of 30 drugs on the QT interval using Gaussian process regression, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty quantification. , 2019, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering.
[47] Teresa Head-Gordon,et al. Systematic Optimization of Water Models Using Liquid/Vapor Surface Tension Data. , 2019, The journal of physical chemistry. B.
[48] Jonas Boström,et al. Deep Reinforcement Learning for Multiparameter Optimization in de novo Drug Design , 2019, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[49] Maho Nakata,et al. PubChemQC PM6: Data Sets of 221 Million Molecules with Optimized Molecular Geometries and Electronic Properties , 2019, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[50] Viktor Hornak,et al. Hidden bias in the DUD-E dataset leads to misleading performance of deep learning in structure-based virtual screening , 2019, PloS one.
[51] Matthias Rarey,et al. In Need of Bias Control: Evaluating Chemical Data for Machine Learning in Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2019, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[52] Masakazu Sekijima,et al. Improved Method of Structure-Based Virtual Screening via Interaction-Energy-Based Learning , 2019, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[53] Krzysztof Rataj,et al. Mol-CycleGAN: a generative model for molecular optimization , 2019, Journal of Cheminformatics.
[54] Alpha A. Lee,et al. Bayesian semi-supervised learning for uncertainty-calibrated prediction of molecular properties and active learning , 2019, Chemical science.
[55] Andrew R. Leach,et al. ChEMBL: towards direct deposition of bioassay data , 2018, Nucleic Acids Res..
[56] Daniel M. Zuckerman,et al. Best Practices for Quantification of Uncertainty and Sampling Quality in Molecular Simulations , 2018 .
[57] Jan H. Jensen,et al. A graph-based genetic algorithm and generative model/Monte Carlo tree search for the exploration of chemical space , 2018, Chemical science.
[58] Li Li,et al. Optimization of Molecules via Deep Reinforcement Learning , 2018, Scientific Reports.
[59] David L Mobley,et al. Escaping Atom Types in Force Fields Using Direct Chemical Perception. , 2018, Journal of chemical theory and computation.
[60] Charlotte M. Deane,et al. Protein Family-Specific Models Using Deep Neural Networks and Transfer Learning Improve Virtual Screening and Highlight the Need for More Data , 2018, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[61] A. Poso,et al. Binding Affinity via Docking: Fact and Fiction , 2018, Molecules.
[62] Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al. Inverse molecular design using machine learning: Generative models for matter engineering , 2018, Science.
[63] Michael R Shirts,et al. Testing for physical validity in molecular simulations , 2018, PloS one.
[64] Caitlin C. Bannan,et al. SAMPL6 challenge results from $$pK_a$$pKa predictions based on a general Gaussian process model , 2018, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.
[65] Koji Tsuda,et al. Population-based de novo molecule generation, using grammatical evolution , 2018, 1804.02134.
[66] Teresa Head-Gordon,et al. New developments in force fields for biomolecular simulations. , 2018, Current opinion in structural biology.
[67] Andreas Bender,et al. Maximizing gain in high-throughput screening using conformal prediction , 2018, Journal of Cheminformatics.
[68] Gianni De Fabritiis,et al. KDEEP: Protein-Ligand Absolute Binding Affinity Prediction via 3D-Convolutional Neural Networks , 2018, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[69] Abhinav Vishnu,et al. Using Rule-Based Labels for Weak Supervised Learning: A ChemNet for Transferable Chemical Property Prediction , 2017, KDD.
[70] Olexandr Isayev,et al. Deep reinforcement learning for de novo drug design , 2017, Science Advances.
[71] Stanley E Lazic,et al. Predicting drug safety and communicating risk: benefits of a Bayesian approach , 2017, bioRxiv.
[72] Izhar Wallach,et al. Most Ligand-Based Benchmarks Measure Overfitting Rather than Accuracy , 2017, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[73] Kilian Q. Weinberger,et al. On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks , 2017, ICML.
[74] Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al. Objective-Reinforced Generative Adversarial Networks (ORGAN) for Sequence Generation Models , 2017, ArXiv.
[75] Maho Nakata,et al. PubChemQC Project: A Large-Scale First-Principles Electronic Structure Database for Data-Driven Chemistry , 2017, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[76] Ranadip Pal,et al. IntegratedMRF: random forest‐based framework for integrating prediction from different data types , 2017, Bioinform..
[77] Pedro J. Ballester,et al. Performance of machine-learning scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening , 2017, Scientific Reports.
[78] Joseph Gomes,et al. Building a More Predictive Protein Force Field: A Systematic and Reproducible Route to AMBER-FB15. , 2017, The journal of physical chemistry. B.
[79] G. Schneider,et al. Active learning for computational chemogenomics. , 2017, Future medicinal chemistry.
[80] Joseph Gomes,et al. MoleculeNet: a benchmark for molecular machine learning† †Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c7sc02664a , 2017, Chemical science.
[81] Andreas Bender,et al. Modelling compound cytotoxicity using conformal prediction and PubChem HTS data. , 2017, Toxicology research.
[82] David Ryan Koes,et al. Protein-Ligand Scoring with Convolutional Neural Networks , 2016, Journal of chemical information and modeling.
[83] Charles Blundell,et al. Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles , 2016, NIPS.
[84] J S Smith,et al. ANI-1: an extensible neural network potential with DFT accuracy at force field computational cost , 2016, Chemical science.
[85] Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al. Automatic Chemical Design Using a Data-Driven Continuous Representation of Molecules , 2016, ACS central science.
[86] Ping Li,et al. A review on Gaussian Process Latent Variable Models , 2016, CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol..
[87] Hao Wu,et al. Multiensemble Markov models of molecular thermodynamics and kinetics , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[88] L. Vosshall,et al. Olfactory perception of chemically diverse molecules , 2016, bioRxiv.
[89] Michael J. Bodkin,et al. Accurate calculation of the absolute free energy of binding for drug molecules , 2015, Chemical science.
[90] Marc C Nicklaus,et al. Tautomerism of Warfarin: Combined Chemoinformatics, Quantum Chemical, and NMR Investigation. , 2015, The Journal of organic chemistry.
[91] Julien Cornebise,et al. Weight Uncertainty in Neural Network , 2015, ICML.
[92] Dong-Sheng Cao,et al. In silico evaluation of logD7.4 and comparison with other prediction methods , 2015 .
[93] Gisbert Schneider,et al. Active-learning strategies in computer-assisted drug discovery. , 2015, Drug discovery today.
[94] Walid Gomaa,et al. Machine learning in computational docking , 2015, Artif. Intell. Medicine.
[95] Jennifer L. Knight,et al. Accurate and reliable prediction of relative ligand binding potency in prospective drug discovery by way of a modern free-energy calculation protocol and force field. , 2015, Journal of the American Chemical Society.
[96] Jie Li,et al. PDB-wide collection of binding data: current status of the PDBbind database , 2015, Bioinform..
[97] Gerhard Hummer,et al. Free energies from dynamic weighted histogram analysis using unbiased Markov state model. , 2015, Journal of chemical theory and computation.
[98] Yoshua Bengio,et al. Generative Adversarial Nets , 2014, NIPS.
[99] Pavlo O. Dral,et al. Quantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules , 2014, Scientific Data.
[100] Maykel Cruz-Monteagudo,et al. Activity cliffs in drug discovery: Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? , 2014, Drug discovery today.
[101] David L. Mobley,et al. FreeSolv: a database of experimental and calculated hydration free energies, with input files , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.
[102] Zhihai Liu,et al. Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 2. Evaluation Methods and General Results , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[103] Scott Boyer,et al. Introducing Conformal Prediction in Predictive Modeling. A Transparent and Flexible Alternative to Applicability Domain Determination , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[104] Vijay S Pande,et al. Building Force Fields: An Automatic, Systematic, and Reproducible Approach. , 2014, The journal of physical chemistry letters.
[105] Eric T. Kim,et al. Correction to How Does a Drug Molecule Find its Target Binding Site , 2014 .
[106] Scott Boyer,et al. Assessment of Machine Learning Reliability Methods for Quantifying the Applicability Domain of QSAR Regression Models , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[107] Max Welling,et al. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes , 2013, ICLR.
[108] Wolfgang Marquardt,et al. What is Wrong with Quantitative Structure-Property Relations Models Based on Three-Dimensional Descriptors? , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[109] Burr Settles,et al. Active Learning , 2012, Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning.
[110] Michael M. Mysinger,et al. Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[111] Luis Pinheiro,et al. A Bayesian Approach to in Silico Blood-Brain Barrier Penetration Modeling , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[112] Ajay N. Jain,et al. Surflex-Dock: Docking benchmarks and real-world application , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.
[113] Rhiju Das,et al. Are Protein Force Fields Getting Better? A Systematic Benchmark on 524 Diverse NMR Measurements. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.
[114] Robert P. Sheridan,et al. Three Useful Dimensions for Domain Applicability in QSAR Models Using Random Forest , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[115] Evan Bolton,et al. PubChem's BioAssay Database , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..
[116] Eric T. Kim,et al. How does a drug molecule find its target binding site? , 2011, Journal of the American Chemical Society.
[117] Qiang Yang,et al. A Survey on Transfer Learning , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.
[118] Pierre Tufféry,et al. Frog2: Efficient 3D conformation ensemble generator for small compounds , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..
[119] Neil D. Lawrence,et al. Bayesian Gaussian Process Latent Variable Model , 2010, AISTATS.
[120] Margaret E. Johnson,et al. Current status of the AMOEBA polarizable force field. , 2010, The journal of physical chemistry. B.
[121] Arthur J. Olson,et al. AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..
[122] Zhihai Liu,et al. Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[123] Michael R. Shirts,et al. Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equilibrium states. , 2008, The Journal of chemical physics.
[124] Scott D. Kahn,et al. Current Status of Methods for Defining the Applicability Domain of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.
[125] Renxiao Wang,et al. The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[126] John S. Delaney,et al. ESOL: Estimating Aqueous Solubility Directly from Molecular Structure , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[127] Matthew P. Repasky,et al. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[128] Hege S. Beard,et al. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[129] Richard D. Taylor,et al. Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD , 2003, Proteins.
[130] Carl E. Rasmussen,et al. Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.
[131] Leo Breiman,et al. Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.
[132] G. Crooks. Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences. , 1999, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.
[133] R. Swendsen,et al. THE weighted histogram analysis method for free‐energy calculations on biomolecules. I. The method , 1992 .
[134] David Weininger,et al. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules , 1988, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..
[135] Charles H. Bennett,et al. Efficient estimation of free energy differences from Monte Carlo data , 1976 .
[136] R. Zwanzig. High‐Temperature Equation of State by a Perturbation Method. I. Nonpolar Gases , 1954 .
[137] J. Kirkwood. Statistical Mechanics of Fluid Mixtures , 1935 .
[138] AkshatKumar Nigam,et al. Curiosity in exploring chemical space: Intrinsic rewards for deep molecular reinforcement learning , 2020, ArXiv.
[139] Takeshi Okadome,et al. Bayesian Kernel Regression for Noisy Inputs Based on Nadaraya-Watson Estimator Constructed from Noiseless Training Data , 2020, Adv. Data Sci. Adapt. Anal..
[140] Alan Grossfield,et al. Best Practices for Quantification of Uncertainty and Sampling Quality in Molecular Simulations [Article v1.0]. , 2018, Living journal of computational molecular science.
[141] Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al. Optimizing distributions over molecular space. An Objective-Reinforced Generative Adversarial Network for Inverse-design Chemistry (ORGANIC) , 2017 .
[142] Shuai Liu,et al. D3R Grand Challenge 2: blind prediction of protein–ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies , 2017, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.
[143] N. Xiao. Lipophilicity Dataset - logD7.4 of 1,130 Compounds , 2017 .
[144] S. Rigatti. Random Forest. , 2017, Journal of insurance medicine.
[145] Jian Yin,et al. Lessons learned from comparing molecular dynamics engines on the SAMPL5 dataset , 2016, bioRxiv.
[146] David L. Mobley,et al. Alchemical Free Energy Calculations : Ready for Prime Time ? , 2016 .
[147] Vytautas Gapsys,et al. Calculation of binding free energies. , 2015, Methods in molecular biology.
[148] D. Mobley,et al. A simple method for automated equilibration detection in molecular simulations , 2015 .
[149] David L Mobley,et al. An introduction to best practices in free energy calculations. , 2013, Methods in molecular biology.
[150] David Cohn,et al. Active Learning , 2010, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning.
[151] Burr Settles,et al. Active Learning Literature Survey , 2009 .
[152] David L. Mobley,et al. Chapter 4 Alchemical Free Energy Calculations: Ready for Prime Time? , 2007 .
[153] Richard S. Sutton,et al. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.
[154] C. Rasmussen,et al. Gaussian Process Priors with Uncertain Inputs - Application to Multiple-Step Ahead Time Series Forecasting , 2002, NIPS.
[155] D. Heiss-Czedik. An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. , 1997, Artificial Life.
[156] A. W.,et al. Journal of chemical information and computer sciences. , 1995, Environmental science & technology.
[157] A. Weigend,et al. Estimating the mean and variance of the target probability distribution , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN'94).