Recent advancements in structure-based drug design (SBDD) have significantly enhanced the efficiency and precision of drug discovery by generating molecules tailored to bind specific protein pockets. Despite these technological strides, their practical application in real-world drug development remains challenging due to the complexities of synthesizing and testing these molecules. The reliability of the Vina docking score, the current standard for assessing binding abilities, is increasingly questioned due to its susceptibility to overfitting. To address these limitations, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that includes assessing the similarity of generated molecules to known active compounds, introducing a virtual screening-based metric for practical deployment capabilities, and re-evaluating binding affinity more rigorously. Our experiments reveal that while current SBDD models achieve high Vina scores, they fall short in practical usability metrics, highlighting a significant gap between theoretical predictions and real-world applicability. Our proposed metrics and dataset aim to bridge this gap, enhancing the practical applicability of future SBDD models and aligning them more closely with the needs of pharmaceutical research and development.

In the field of Structure-based Drug Design (SBDD), deep learning-based generative models have achieved outstanding performance in terms of docking score. However, further study shows that the existing molecular generative methods and docking scores both have lacked consideration in terms of specificity, which means that generated molecules bind to almost every protein pocket with high affinity. To address this, we introduce the Delta Score, a new metric for evaluating the specificity of molecular binding. To further incorporate this insight for generation, we develop an innovative energy-guided approach using contrastive learning, with active compounds as decoys, to direct generative models toward creating molecules with high specificity. Our empirical results show that this method not only enhances the delta score but also maintains or improves traditional docking scores, successfully bridging the gap between SBDD and real-world needs.

Structure-based drug design (SBDD) stands at the forefront of drug discovery, emphasizing the creation of molecules that target specific binding pockets. Recent advances in this area have witnessed the adoption of deep generative models and geometric deep learning techniques, modeling SBDD as a conditional generation task where the target structure serves as context. Historically, evaluation of these models centered on docking scores, which quantitatively depict the predicted binding affinity between a molecule and its target pocket. Though state-of-the-art models purport that a majority of their generated ligands exceed the docking score of ground truth ligands in test sets, it begs the question: Do these scores align with real-world biological needs? In this paper, we introduce the delta score, a novel evaluation metric grounded in tangible pharmaceutical requisites. Our experiments reveal that molecules produced by current deep generative models significantly lag behind ground truth reference ligands when assessed with the delta score. This novel metric not only complements existing benchmarks but also provides a pivotal direction for subsequent research in the domain.

We evaluated an affect-sensitive version of AutoTutor, a dialogue based ITS that simulates human tutors. While the original AutoTutor is sensitive to students’ cognitive states, the affect-sensitive tutor (Supportive tutor) also responds to students’ affective states (boredom, confusion, and frustration) with empathetic, encouraging, and motivational dialogue moves that are accompanied by appropriate emotional expressions. We conducted an experiment that compared the Supportive and Regular (non-affective) tutors over two 30-minute learning sessions with respect to perceived effectiveness, fidelity of cognitive and emotional feedback, engagement, and enjoyment. The results indicated that, irrespective of tutor, students’ ratings of engagement, enjoyment, and perceived learning decreased across sessions, but these ratings were not correlated with actual learning gains. In contrast, students’ perceptions of how closely the computer tutors resembled human tutors increased across learning sessions, was related to the quality of tutor feedback, the increase was greater for the Supportive tutor, and was a powerful predictor of learning. Implications of our findings for the design of affect-sensitive ITSs are discussed.