BioTarget Predictions BENCHMARK
Binding affinity, target identification, and mechanism of action — validated against CASF-2016 and ChEMBL benchmarks. Validated against published benchmarks.
Binding affinity, target identification, and mechanism of action — validated against CASF-2016 and ChEMBL benchmarks. Validated against published benchmarks.
FluxTarget solves a fundamentally harder problem than every method it is compared against.
CC(=O)Oc1ccccc1C(=O)O)
| Method | Pearson r | MAE (pKi) | Required Input | Training Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEEP LEARNING + 3D CO-CRYSTAL STRUCTURE + LARGE TRAINING SETS | ||||
| graphDelta (GNN) | 0.87 | — | Resolved bound complex | Large structure-supervised set |
| Kdeep (CNN) | 0.85 | — | Resolved bound complex | Large structure-supervised set |
| GNINA (CNN) | 0.82 | ~1.0 | Resolved bound complex | Large structure-supervised set |
| CLASSICAL SCORING + 3D CO-CRYSTAL STRUCTURE | ||||
| RF-Score v3 | 0.72 | ~1.4 | Resolved bound complex | Moderate structure-based set |
| Glide SP | 0.65 | — | Resolved bound complex | Empirical (fitted to structures) |
| X-Score | 0.61 | — | Resolved bound complex | Empirical (fitted to structures) |
| AutoDock Vina | 0.60–0.70 | ~1.5–1.7 | Resolved bound complex | Empirical (fitted to structures) |
| NO 3D STRUCTURE · NO TRAINING DATA | ||||
| FluxMateria FluxTarget | 0.772 | 1.28 | SMILES + target name | None (physics-only) |
All methods are benchmarked on CASF-2016 scoring power. Many comparison methods rely on resolved complex structures and structure-supervised training sets. FluxTarget remains competitive despite starting from materially less input information.
Off-target binding predictions and selectivity scoring. Status: Planned.
Predict binding affinities across 10,000+ targets with full interpretability. CASF-2016 validated.