You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While writing the scoring function might not be very complex (as it's possible to create a class that returns a float—the score—to reweight the Bayesian coefficients of Thomson Sampling), the main challenge would be making it computationally efficient. Only high-throughput docking engines like Plants or QVINAW might be suitable for this purpose.
The advantage is clear: deliver DockM8 not only to computational chemistry specialists but also to medicinal chemists (something you're already doing from day zero by writing the Streamlit interface).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi developers,
DockM8 (or a low-computational-power version of it) could be integrated as a scoring function for a [Thomson Sampling approach by PatWalters](https://github.com/PatWalters/TS) or [Thomson Sampling Enhanced](https://github.com/WIMNZhao/TS_Enhanced). This integration could benefit all Cheminformatics and Medicinal Chemistry routines that require screening an ultra-large chemical space derived from a single SMARTS pattern, without needing to enumerate the reaction. This approach would complement machine learning-enhanced docking.
While writing the scoring function might not be very complex (as it's possible to create a class that returns a float—the score—to reweight the Bayesian coefficients of Thomson Sampling), the main challenge would be making it computationally efficient. Only high-throughput docking engines like Plants or QVINAW might be suitable for this purpose.
The advantage is clear: deliver DockM8 not only to computational chemistry specialists but also to medicinal chemists (something you're already doing from day zero by writing the Streamlit interface).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: