 The count of 1.3 million "active" vs 3.4 million "tested" CIDs is very high, compared with a conventional HTS with assay hit-rates in the order of ~1%. There are several reasons for this but generous active thresholds (e.g. multi-uM) set by PubChem and their inclusion in ChEMBL extractions are the main ones  Potencies consequently need to be checked for stringency and plausibility  Special caution (i.e. a pinch salt) is needed for unconfirmed primary assay data  Data is variable even extracted from papers. This means project-critical results will need at least independent support or ideally reproducible experimental verification)  Even at over 75K papers the extraction of bioactivity by ChEMBL is only a fraction of published compound bioactivity results (the total of which remains unknown)  As mentioned, between a curatorial backlog and long release cycles the results