PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 7, 2026Journal of Cheminformatics3 citationsOpen Access

Framework for evaluating explainable AI in antimicrobial drug discovery

View Full Paper
AOAbdulmujeeb T. OnawoleMBMark A. T. BlaskovichJZJohannes Zuegg

Key Points

  • The aim is to develop an evaluation framework for explainable AI in antimicrobial drug discovery.
  • Developed evaluation framework using fragment-based explainability tests
  • Employed Random Forest, CNN, and RGCN models for molecular representation
  • Compared models on scaffold recognition and robustness
  • Analyzed explainability behaviour regarding activity cliffs
  • All XAI methods showed good predictive capabilities
  • Random Forest and molecular graphs performed well in scaffold recognition
  • Highlighting different explainability behaviours for activity cliffs among the XAI approaches

Abstract

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods for molecular property prediction lack standardized evaluation criteria, preventing widespread deployment in drug development and hit optimisation, where proper understanding of structure-activity relationship is essential. We developed an evaluation framework for XAI using fragment-based explainability tests to compare XAI with different molecular representation and challenge the different XAI approaches for proper explanation of activity cliffs. The evaluation methods include essential scaffold recognition, scaffold sensitivity and substructure specificity for explaining activity cliff, and technical evaluation on model robustness and consistency. Using a curated dataset of antibiotic molecules we established three XAI models with fundamentally different molecular representation: Random Forest on chemical features using SHAP, CNN on sequence-based SMILES using token occlusion, and RGCN on molecular graphs with substructure masking. Together with detailed case study, we evaluated the explainability behaviours and quality of the different XAI approaches and highlighted their limitations. While all XAI approaches displayed good predictive and scaffold recognition capabilities, and comparable robustness and consistency, they displayed quite different explainability behaviour for activity cliffs, revealing their different utility for medicinal chemistry. SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION: A.T.O. performed the study, A.T.O and J.Z. contributed to the concept of the study and wrote the original manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Onawole et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fbf004164b5133a91a443ahttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-026-01200-x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper