“…The ligand‐based methods such as pharmacophore (PHA) and three‐dimensional quantitative structure–activity relationship (3D‐QSAR) modeling, which rely on the advance knowledge of active compounds, are computationally inexpensive. However, despite being commonly used in the drug discovery and lead optimization, the PHA and 3D‐QSAR model generation does not necessarily utilize the bioactive ligand conformers but those that generate the most explanatory model(s) (Cramer, Patterson, & Bunce, ; Kinase, Zhang, Li, Zhang, & Ai, ; Lowe, Ferrebee, Rodriguez, Conn, & Meiler, ; Niinivehmas et al., ; Patel, Noolvi, & Sharma, ; Shubina, Niinivehmas, & Pentikäinen, ; Tian et al., ; Yadav et al., ). In contrast, the structure‐based methods such as flexible molecular docking, which attempt to predict the ligand's bioactive binding pose and estimate its binding energy, rely solely on the target protein's 3D structure and require a lot of computational resources (Niinivehmas et al., ; Nurminen et al., ; Shubina et al., ).…”