arXiv (All)
open access
Which reported inputs govern molecular docking reproducibility? A benchmark from reporting audit to independent re-execution
Computational docking results can be re-executed only when the molecular system and protocol are specified, yet reporting checklists do not quantify how strongly individual method fields affect the reported score. We combined a span-verified audit of 50 open-access papers with controlled one-factor
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- UC Comments on FDA Docket No. FDA-2019-N-2175 for “Institutional Review Boards; Cooperative Research.” (September 28, 2022)#629321
- Cochrane Evaluation of (Semi-) Automated Review (CESAR) Methods: Protocol for an adaptive platform study within reviews#183350
- Overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 11: Agent-Based Experiment Reproduction from Scientific Papers#998670
- How Do Document Parsers Break? Auditing Structural Vulnerability in Document Intelligence#1011106
- CB-Dock3: an enhanced web server for protein-ligand blind docking.#362338
Record · ID 1141862
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive