Using Molecular Embeddings in QSAR Modeling: Does it Make a Difference?
  With the consolidation of deep learning in drug discovery, several novel
algorithms for learning molecular representations have been proposed. Despite
the interest of the community in developing new methods for learning molecular
embeddings and their theoretical benefits, comparing molecular embeddings with
each other and with traditional representations is not straightforward, which
in turn hinders the process of choosing a suitable representation for QSAR
modeling. A reason behind this issue is the difficulty of conducting a fair and
thorough comparison of the different existing embedding approaches, which
requires numerous experiments on various datasets and training scenarios. To
close this gap, we reviewed the literature on methods for molecular embeddings
and reproduced three unsupervised and two supervised molecular embedding
techniques recently proposed in the literature. We compared these five methods
concerning their performance in QSAR scenarios using different classification
and regression datasets. We also compared these representations to traditional
molecular representations, namely molecular descriptors and fingerprints. As
opposed to the expected outcome, our experimental setup consisting of over
25,000 trained models and statistical tests revealed that the predictive
performance using molecular embeddings did not significantly surpass that of
traditional representations. While supervised embeddings yielded competitive
results compared to those using traditional molecular representations,
unsupervised embeddings tended to perform worse than traditional
representations. Our results highlight the need for conducting a careful
comparison and analysis of the different embedding techniques prior to using
them in drug design tasks, and motivate a discussion about the potential of
molecular embeddings in computer-aided drug design.
