Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Fergus Boyles

dblp:258/2845 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-4185-1229ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › molecular informatics › molecular modeling › molecular docking
machine learning scoring function
1.322025
Robustly interrogating machine learning-based scoring functions: what are they learning? · Bioinform. 2025
Learning from the ligand: using ligand-based features to improve binding affinity prediction · Bioinform. 2020
Bioinformatics and computational biology › structural bioinformatics
protein-ligand binding
0.912025
Robustly interrogating machine learning-based scoring functions: what are they learning? · Bioinform. 2025
Bioinformatics and computational biology › molecular informatics › molecular modeling › molecular docking
scoring function evaluation
0.912025
Robustly interrogating machine learning-based scoring functions: what are they learning? · Bioinform. 2025
Bioinformatics and computational biology › molecular property prediction
protein-ligand binding affinity prediction
0.412020
Learning from the ligand: using ligand-based features to improve binding affinity prediction · Bioinform. 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

machine learning · 0.9dataset bias analysis · 0.9random forest · 0.4RDKit molecular descriptors · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Robustly interrogating machine learning-based scoring functions: what are they learning?
abstract
MOTIVATION: Machine learning-based scoring functions (MLBSFs) have been found to exhibit inconsistent performance on different benchmarks and be prone to learning dataset bias. For the field to develop MLBSFs that learn a generalizable understanding of physics, a more rigorous understanding of how they perform is required. RESULTS: In this work, we compared the performance of a diverse set of popular MLBSFs (RFScore, SIGN, OnionNet-2, Pafnucy, and PointVS) to our proposed baseline models that can only learn dataset biases on a range of benchmarks. We found that these baseline models were competitive in accuracy to these MLBSFs in almost all proposed benchmarks, indicating these models only learn dataset biases. Our tests and provided platform, ToolBoxSF, will enable researchers to robustly interrogate MLBSF performance and determine the effect of dataset biases on their predictions. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/guydurant/toolboxsf.
Guy Durant, Fergus Boyles, Kristian Birchall, Brian D. Marsden, Charlotte M. Deane
Bioinform.2
2020 Learning from the ligand: using ligand-based features to improve binding affinity prediction
abstract
MOTIVATION: Machine learning scoring functions for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction have been found to consistently outperform classical scoring functions. Structure-based scoring functions for universal affinity prediction typically use features describing interactions derived from the protein-ligand complex, with limited information about the chemical or topological properties of the ligand itself. RESULTS: We demonstrate that the performance of machine learning scoring functions are consistently improved by the inclusion of diverse ligand-based features. For example, a Random Forest (RF) combining the features of RF-Score v3 with RDKit molecular descriptors achieved Pearson correlation coefficients of up to 0.836, 0.780 and 0.821 on the PDBbind 2007, 2013 and 2016 core sets, respectively, compared to 0.790, 0.746 and 0.814 when using the features of RF-Score v3 alone. Excluding proteins and/or ligands that are similar to those in the test sets from the training set has a significant effect on scoring function performance, but does not remove the predictive power of ligand-based features. Furthermore a RF using only ligand-based features is predictive at a level similar to classical scoring functions and it appears to be predicting the mean binding affinity of a ligand for its protein targets. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Data and code to reproduce all the results are freely available at http://opig.stats.ox.ac.uk/resources. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Fergus Boyles, Charlotte M. Deane, Garrett M. Morris
Bioinform.1