Skip to main content

Table 2 Performance comparison on CASF-2007, CASF-2013, and CASF-2016 datasets

From: Harnessing pre-trained models for accurate prediction of protein-ligand binding affinity

Method

CASF-2007

CASF-2013

CASF-2016

Pearson \(\uparrow\)

Pearson \(\uparrow\)

RMSE \(\downarrow\)

Pearson \(\uparrow\)

Spearman \(\uparrow\)

AutodockVina [42]

–

0.54

–

0.604

0.528

Glide-SP [7]

0.343

0.452

–

0.513

0.419

Glide-XP [43]

0.457

0.277

–

0.467

0.257

ECIF [44]

–

–

1.169

0.866

–

CAPLA [45]

–

0.770

1.200

0.843

–

SVSBI [46]

–

–

–

0.832

–

KDEEP [9]

–

–

–

0.701

0.528

Pafnucy [10]

–

0.70

1.42

0.78

–

OnionNet-2 [47]

–

0.821

1.164

0.864

–

GenScore [48]

–

–

–

0.837

0.682

ConBAP [49]

–

–

1.127

0.864

0.719

PIGNet2 [50]

–

–

–

0.747

0.651

TopoFormer-Seq [51]

0.836

0.817

–

0.865

–

SableBind

0.826

0.787

1.205

0.832

0.825

  1. The methods are divided into three categories: traditional scoring functions (top), sequence-based methods (middle), and structure-based methods (bottom). The best and second-best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively