Another string to your bow: machine learning prediction of the pharmacokinetic properties of small molecules

References

• Martin L, Hutchens M, Hawkins C. Clinical trial cycle times continue to increase despite industry efforts. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;16(3):157–157. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simoens S, Huys I. R&D Costs of new medicines: a landscape analysis. Front Med. 2021;8. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.760762
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennane S, Baker L, Mulcahy A. Estimating the cost of industry investment in drug research and development: a review of methods and results. Inq J Heal Care Organ Provis Financing. 2021;58:00469580211059731. doi: 10.1177/00469580211059731
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun D, Gao W, Hu H, et al. Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it? Acta Pharm Sin B. 2022;12(7):3049–3062. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2022.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuhmacher A, Hinder M, von A, et al. Analysis of pharma R&D productivity – a new perspective needed. Drug Discov Today. 2023;28(10):103726. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2023.103726
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler S, Kletzl H, Finel M, et al. A UGT2B10 splicing polymorphism common in African populations may greatly increase drug exposure. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2015;352(2):358–367. doi: 10.1124/jpet.114.220194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith DA, van Waterschoot RAB, Parrott NJ, et al. Importance of target-mediated drug disposition for small molecules. Drug Discov Today. 2018;23(12):2023–2030. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2018.06.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson NC, Ge GF, Manso S. The importance of (exponentially more) computing power. Aca Manag Proceed. cited 2023 Jul. 25;2023(1). Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14007
   Google Scholar
• Pavan M, Menin S, Bassani D, et al. Implementing a scoring function based on interaction fingerprint for Autogrow4: protein kinase CK1δ as a case study. Front Mol Biosci. 2022;9. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.909499
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbone D, De Franco M, Pecoraro C, et al. Discovery of the 3-amino-1,2,4-triazine-based library as selective PDK1 inhibitors with therapeutic potential in highly aggressive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(4):3679. doi: 10.3390/ijms24043679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassani D, Moro S. Past, present, and future perspectives on computer-aided drug design methodologies. Molecules. 2023;28(9):3906. doi: 10.3390/molecules28093906
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabe VT, Ntombela T, Jhamba LA, et al. Current trends in computer aided drug design and a highlight of drugs discovered via computational techniques: a review. Eur J Med Chem. 2021;224:113705. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2021.113705
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leelananda SP, Lindert S. Computational methods in drug discovery. Beilstein J Org Chem. 2016;12:2694–2718. doi: 10.3762/bjoc.12.267
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sliwoski G, Kothiwale S, Meiler J, et al. Computational methods in drug discovery. Pharmacol Rev. 2014;66(1):334–395. doi: 10.1124/pr.112.007336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choudhuri S, Yendluri M, Poddar S, et al. Recent advancements in computational drug design algorithms through machine learning and optimization. Kinases Phosphatases. 2023;1(2):117–140. doi: 10.3390/kinasesphosphatases1020008
   Google Scholar
• Bassani M, Scarso A, Drago M, et al. Endo-1-phenylborneol as a novel, alternative chiral auxiliary for the aza-diels-alder reaction. Tetrahedron Lett. 2020;61(31):152165. doi: 10.1016/j.tetlet.2020.152165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavan M, Bassani D, Bolcato G, et al. Computational strategies to identify new drug candidates against neuroinflammation. CMC. 2022;29(27):4756–4775. doi: 10.2174/0929867329666220208095122
   Google Scholar
• Obrezanova O. Artificial intelligence for compound pharmacokinetics prediction. Curr Opin Struc Biol. 2023;79:102546. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102546
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polson AG, Fuji RN. The successes and limitations of preclinical studies in predicting the pharmacodynamics and safety of cell‐surface‐targeted biological agents in patients. Br J Pharmacol. 2012;166(5):1600–1602. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.01916.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• “Review of the use of two species in regulatory toxicology studies | NC3Rs.” [ Online]. [cited 2023 Aug 21]. Available from: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/our-portfolio/review-use-two-species-regulatory-toxicology-studies
   Google Scholar
• Zou P, Yu Y, Zheng N, et al. Applications of human pharmacokinetic prediction in first-in-human dose estimation. Aaps J. 2012;14(2):262–281. doi: 10.1208/s12248-012-9332-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoyanova R, Katzberger PM, Komissarov L, et al. Computational predictions of nonclinical pharmacokinetics at the drug design stage. J Chem Inf Model. 2023;63(2):442–458. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01134
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miljković F, Martinsson A, Obrezanova O, et al. MachinE learning models for human in vivo pharmacokinetic parameters with In-house validation. Mol Pharmaceut. 2021;18(12):4520–4530. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.1c00718
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toutain PL, Bousquet‐Mélou A. Plasma clearance. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2004;27(6):415–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2004.00605.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yates JWT, Arundel PA. On the volume of distribution at steady state and its relationship with two‐compartmental models. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97(1):111–122. doi: 10.1002/jps.21089
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lappin G, Rowland M, Garner RC. The use of isotopes in the determination of absolute bioavailability of drugs in humans. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2006;2(3):419–427. doi: 10.1517/17425255.2.3.419
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toutain PL, Bousquet‐Mélou A. Bioavailability and its assessment. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2004;27(6):455–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2004.00604.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watanabe R, Esaki T, Kawashima H, et al. Predicting fraction unbound in human plasma from chemical structure: improved accuracy in the low value ranges. Mol Pharm. 2018;15(11):5302–5311. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b00785
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boxenbaum H. Interspecies variation in liver weight, hepatic blood flow, and antipyrine intrinsic clearance: extrapolation of data to benzodiazepines and phenytoin. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1980;8(2):165–176. doi: 10.1007/bf01065191
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ingber DE. Human organs-on-chips for disease modelling, drug development and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Genet. 2022;23(8):467–491. doi: 10.1038/s41576-022-00466-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao Z, Chen X, Dowbaj AM, et al. Organoids. Nat Rev Methods Prim. 2022;2(1):94. doi: 10.1038/s43586-022-00174-y
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Choi G-W, Lee Y-B, Cho H-Y. Interpretation of non-clinical data for prediction of human pharmacokinetic parameters: In vitro-in vivo extrapolation and allometric scaling. Pharmaceutics. 2019;11(4):168. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11040168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dedrick RL. Animal scale-up. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1973;1(5):435–461. doi: 10.1007/bf01059667
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rusyn I, Sakolish C, Kato Y, et al. Microphysiological systems evaluation: experience of TEX-VAL tissue chip testing consortium. Toxicol Sci. 2022;188(2):143–152. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfac061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paalzow LK. Torsten Teorell, the father of pharmacokinetics. Upsala J Méd Sci. 2010;100(1):41–46. doi: 10.3109/03009739509178895
   Google Scholar
• Peck CC, Barr WH, Benet LZ, et al. Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicokinetics in rational drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;51(4):465–473. doi: 10.1038/clpt.1992.47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li AP. Screening for human ADME/Tox drug properties in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2001;6(7):357–366. doi: 10.1016/s1359-6446(01)01712-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerns E. Editorial [hot topic: high throughput in vitro ADME/Tox profiling for drug discovery (Guest Editor: Edward H. Kerns)]. Curr Drug Metab. 2008;9(9):845–846. doi: 10.2174/138920008786485074
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lin W, Chen Y, Unadkat JD, et al. Applications, challenges, and outlook for PBPK modeling and simulation: a regulatory, industrial and academic perspective. Pharm Res. 2022;39(8):1701–1731. doi: 10.1007/s11095-022-03274-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhuang X, Lu C. PBPK modeling and simulation in drug research and development. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2016;6(5):430–440. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2016.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belubbi T, Bassani D, Stillhart C, et al. Physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling of food effect for Basmisanil: a retrospective case study of the utility for formulation bridging. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(1):191. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15010191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager JE, Yu J, Ragueneau-Majlessi I, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulation approaches: a systematic review of published models, applications, and Model verification. Drug Metab Dispos. 2015;43(11):1823–1837. doi: 10.1124/dmd.115.065920
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaohua L, Abduljalil K, Jamei M, et al. PBPK for pregnancy with time‐varying physiological parameters. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74(5):873–885. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04363.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chetty M, Johnson TN, Polak S, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling to guide drug delivery in older people. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2018;135:85–96. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2018.08.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvier EAM, Krekels EHJ, Johnson TN, et al. Scaling drug clearance from adults to the young children for drugs undergoing hepatic metabolism: a simulation study to search for the simplest scaling method. Aaps J. 2019;21(3):38. doi: 10.1208/s12248-019-0295-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostami‐Hodjegan A. Reverse translation in PBPK and QSP: going backwards in order to go forward with confidence. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103(2):224–232. doi: 10.1002/cpt.904
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostami‐Hodjegan A. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics joined with in vitro–in vivo extrapolation of ADME: a marriage under the arch of systems pharmacology. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(1):50–61. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2012.65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Rodríguez DR, Ramírez-Solís R, Garza-Elizondo MA, et al. Genome editing: a perspective on the application of CRISPR/Cas9 to study human diseases (review). Int J Mol Med. 2019;43(4):1559–1574. doi: 10.3892/ijmm.2019.4112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu J, Liu J, Guo Y, et al. CRISPR-Cas9: a method for establishing rat models of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2021;11(10):2973–2982. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2021.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall B, Limaye A, Kulkarni AB. Overview: generation of gene knockout mice. Curr Protoc Cell Biol. 2009;44(1):.19.12.1–.19.12.17. doi: 10.1002/0471143030.cb1912s44
   Google Scholar
• Yong KSM, Her Z, Chen Q. Humanized mice as unique tools for human-specific studies. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. 2018;66(4):245–266. doi: 10.1007/s00005-018-0506-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu J, Lu J, Yao B, et al. Construction of humanized CYP1A2 rats using CRISPR/Cas9 to promote drug metabolism and pharmacokinetic research. Drug Metab Dispos. 2023;52(1):DMD-AR-2023–001500. doi: 10.1124/dmd.123.001500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu J, Shang X, Huang S, et al. Construction and characterization of CRISPR/Cas9 knockout rat model of carboxylesterase 2a gene. Mol Pharmacol. 2021;100(5):MOLPHARM-AR-2021–000357. doi: 10.1124/molpharm.121.000357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu J, Chen A, Ma X, et al. Generation and characterization of cytochrome P450 2J3/10 CRISPR/Cas9 knockout rat Model. Drug Metab Dispos. 2020;48(11):DMD-AR-2020–000114. doi: 10.1124/dmd.120.000114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petitet F, Barberan O, Dubus E, et al. Development of an ADME and drug–drug interactions knowledge database for the acceleration of drug discovery and development. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2006;1(7):737–751. doi: 10.1517/17460441.1.7.737
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Przybylak KR, Madden JC, Covey-Crump E, et al. Characterisation of data resources for in silico modelling: benchmark datasets for ADME properties. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2018;14(2):169–181. doi: 10.1080/17425255.2017.1316449
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhhatarai B, Walters WP, Hop CECA, et al. Opportunities and challenges using artificial intelligence in ADME/Tox. Nat Mater. 2019;18(5):418–422. doi: 10.1038/s41563-019-0332-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen JU, Quinon P. The importance of expert knowledge in big data and machine learning. Synthese. 2023;201(2):35. doi: 10.1007/s11229-023-04041-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badillo S, Banfai B, Birzele F, et al. An introduction to machine learning. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107(4):871–885. doi: 10.1002/cpt.1796
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman JH. Recent advances in predictive (machine) learning. J Classif. 2006;23(2):175–197. doi: 10.1007/s00357-006-0012-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atz K, Grisoni F, Schneider G. Geometric deep learning on molecular representations. Nature Mach Intell. 2021;3(12):1023–1032. doi: 10.1038/s42256-021-00418-8
   Google Scholar
• Zhou J, Cui G, Hu S, et al. Graph neural networks: a review of methods and applications. AI Open. 2020;1:57–81. doi: 10.1016/j.aiopen.2021.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Morger A, Garcia de Lomana M, Norinder U, et al. Studying and mitigating the effects of data drifts on ML model performance at the example of chemical toxicity data. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):7244. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09309-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yap CW, Li ZR, Chen YZ. Quantitative structure–pharmacokinetic relationships for drug clearance by using statistical learning methods. J Mol Graph Model. 2006;24(5):383–395. doi: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2005.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu C, Mager DE. Quantitative structure–pharmacokinetic relationships. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2011;7(1):63–77. doi: 10.1517/17425255.2011.537257
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janela T, Takeuchi K, Bajorath J. Predicting potent compounds using a conditional variational autoencoder based upon a new structure–potency fingerprint. Biomolecules. 2023;13(2):393. doi: 10.3390/biom13020393
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naga D, Muster W, Musvasva E, et al. Off-targetP ML: an open source machine learning framework for off-target panel safety assessment of small molecules. J Cheminformatics. 2022;14(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s13321-022-00603-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prezhdo OV. Advancing physical chemistry with machine learning. J Phys Chem Lett. 2020;11(22):9656–9658. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c03130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim MA, Yang S, Mai H, et al. Exploring deep learning of quantum chemical properties for absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion predictions. J Chem Inf Model. 2022;62(24):6336–6341. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.2c00245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bräm DS, Parrott N, Hutchinson L, et al. Introduction of an artificial neural network–based method for concentration‐time predictions. CPT Pharmacom Syst Pharma. 2022;11(6):745–754. doi: 10.1002/psp4.12786
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pietersma D, Lacroix R, Lefebvre D, et al. Performance analysis for machine-learning experiments using small data sets. Comput Electron Agric. 2003;38(1):1–17. doi: 10.1016/s0168-1699(02)00104-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lascio ED, Gerebtzoff G, Rodríguez-Pérez R. Systematic evaluation of local and global machine learning models for the prediction of ADME properties. Mol Pharm. 2023;20(3):1758–1767. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00962
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kumar K, Chupakhin V, Vos A, et al. Development and implementation of an enterprise-wide predictive model for early absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion properties. Futur Med Chem. 2021;13(19):1639–1654. doi: 10.4155/fmc-2021-0138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czub N, Szlȩk J, Pacławski A, et al. Artificial intelligence-based quantitative structure–property relationship model for predicting human intestinal absorption of compounds with serotonergic activity. Mol Pharm. 2023;20(5):2545–2555. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c01117
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang X, Liu T, Fan X, et al. In silico modeling on ADME properties of natural products: classification models for blood-brain barrier permeability, its application to traditional Chinese medicine and in vitro experimental validation. J Mol Graph Model. 2017;75:347–354. doi: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2017.05.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prachayasittikul V, Worachartcheewan A, Shoombuatong W, et al. Classification of P-glycoprotein-interacting compounds using machine learning methods. Excli J. 2015;14:958–970. doi: 10.17179/excli2015-374
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belekar V, Lingineni K, Garg P. Classification of breast cancer resistant protein (BCRP) inhibitors and non-inhibitors using machine learning approaches. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2015;18(5):476–485. doi: 10.2174/1386207318666150525094503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banerjee P, Dunkel M, Kemmler E, et al. SuperCYPsPred—a web server for the prediction of cytochrome activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48(W1):W580–W585. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmer M, de C, Kops B, et al. Cypstrate: a set of machine learning models for the accurate classification of cytochrome P450 enzyme substrates and non-substrates. Molecules. 2021;26(15):4678. doi: 10.3390/molecules26154678
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzolari A, Scaccabarozzi A, Vistoli G, et al. MetaClass, a comprehensive classification system for predicting the occurrence of metabolic reactions based on the MetaQSAR database. Molecules. 2021;26(19):5857. doi: 10.3390/molecules26195857
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malwe AS, Srivastava GN, Sharma VK. GutBug: a tool for prediction of human gut bacteria mediated biotransformation of biotic and xenobiotic molecules using machine learning. J Mol Biol. 2023;435(14):168056. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2023.168056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang WD, Jang J, Song JS, et al. PredPS: attention-based graph neural network for predicting stability of compounds in human plasma. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2023;21:3532–3539. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2023.07.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaretzki J, Matlock M, Swamidass SJ. XenoSite: accurately predicting CYP-Mediated sites of metabolism with neural networks. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53(12):3373–3383. doi: 10.1021/ci400518g
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StarDrop: small molecule drug discovery & data visualisation software. 2024 Mar 19. Available from: https://optibrium.com/stardrop/
   Google Scholar
• Ng SSS, Lu Y. Evaluating the use of graph neural networks and transfer learning for oral bioavailability prediction. J Chem Inf Model. 2023;63(16):5035–5044. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00554
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rácz A, Vincze A, Volk B, et al. Extending the limitations in the prediction of PAMPA permeability with machine learning algorithms. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2023;188:106514. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2023.106514
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatia AS, Saggi MK, Kais S. Quantum Machine learning predicting ADME-Tox properties in drug discovery. J Chem Inf Model. 2023. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c01079 63 21 6476–6486
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneckener S, Grimbs S, Hey J, et al. Prediction of oral bioavailability in rats: transferring insights from in vitro correlations to (deep) machine learning models using in silico Model outputs and chemical structure parameters. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(11):4893–4905. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwata H, Matsuo T, Mamada H, et al. Predicting total drug clearance and volumes of distribution using the machine learning-mediated multimodal method through the imputation of various nonclinical data. J Chem Inf Model. 2022;62(17):4057–4065. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.2c00318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caruana R. Multitask learning. Mach Learn. 1997;28(1):41–75. doi: 10.1023/a:1007379606734
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu K, Sun X, Jia L, et al. Chemi-Net: a molecular graph convolutional network for accurate drug property prediction. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(14):3389. doi: 10.3390/ijms20143389
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lou H, Hageman MJ. Machine learning attempts for predicting human subcutaneous bioavailability of monoclonal antibodies. Pharm Res. 2021;38(3):451–460. doi: 10.1007/s11095-021-03022-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heyndrickx W, Mervin L, Morawietz T, et al. MELLODDY: cross-pharma Federated Learning at unprecedented scale unlocks benefits in QSAR without compromising proprietary information. J Chem Inf Model. 2023. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang C, Wang Y, Grater R, et al. Prospective Validation of Machine Learning Algorithms for absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion prediction: an industrial perspective. J Chem Inf Model. 2023;63(11):3263–3274. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Liu M, Zhang L, et al. Optimizing pharmacokinetic property prediction based on integrated datasets and a deep learning approach. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(10):4603–4613. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00568
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orosz Á, Héberger K, Rácz A. Comparison of descriptor- and fingerprint sets in machine learning models for ADME-Tox targets. Front Chem. 2022;10:852893. doi: 10.3389/fchem.2022.852893
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obrezanova O, Martinsson A, Whitehead T, et al. Prediction of in vivo pharmacokinetic parameters and Time–exposure curves in rats using machine learning from the chemical structure. Mol Pharm. 2022;19(5):1488–1504. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00027
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yang K, Swanson K, Jin W, et al. Analyzing learned molecular representations for property prediction. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(8):3370–3388. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heid E, Greenman KP, Chung Y, et al. Chemprop: a machine learning package for chemical property prediction. J Chem Inf Model. 2024;64(1):9–17. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c01250
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin BWJ, Levell JR, Whitehead TM, et al. Practical applications of deep learning to impute heterogeneous drug discovery data. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(6):2848–2857. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freitas AA, Limbu K, Ghafourian T. Predicting volume of distribution with decision tree-based regression methods using predicted tissue: plasma partition coefficients. J Cheminformatics. 2015;7(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s13321-015-0054-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murad N, Pasikanti KK, Madej BD, et al. Predicting volume of distribution in humans: performance of in silico methods for a large set of structurally diverse clinical compounds. Drug Metab Dispos. 2020;49(2):DMD-AR-2020–000202. doi: 10.1124/dmd.120.000202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cauvin C, Bourguignon L, Carriat L, et al. Machine-learning exploration of exposure-effect relationships of cisplatin in head and neck cancer patients. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(11):2509. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14112509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang A. Machine learning for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling. J Pharm Sci. 2023;112(5):1460–1475. doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2023.01.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khusial R, Bies RR, Akil A. Deep learning methods applied to drug concentration prediction of olanzapine. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(4):1139. doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics15041139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naga D, Parrott N, Ecker GF, et al. Evaluation of the success of high-throughput physiologically based pharmacokinetic (HT-PBPK) modeling predictions to inform early drug discovery. Mol Pharm. 2022;19(7):2203–2216. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adachi K, Shimizu M, Yamazaki H. Updated in silico prediction methods for fractions absorbed and key input parameters of 355 disparate chemicals for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for time-dependent plasma concentrations after virtual oral doses in humans. Biol Pharm Bull. 2022;45(12):1812–1817. doi: 10.1248/bpb.b22-00502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrott N, Manevski N, Olivares-Morales A. Can we predict clinical pharmacokinetics of highly lipophilic compounds by Integration of Machine Learning or in vitro data into physiologically based models? A feasibility study based on 12 development compounds. Mol Pharmaceut. 2022;19(11):3858–3868. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerholm U, Hellberg S, Spjuth O. Advances in predictions of oral bioavailability of Candidate drugs in man with new machine learning methodology. Molecules. 2021;26(9):2572. doi: 10.3390/molecules26092572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Destere A, Marquet P, Labriffe M, et al. A hybrid algorithm combining population pharmacokinetic and machine learning for isavuconazole exposure prediction. Pharm Res. 2023;40(4):951–959. doi: 10.1007/s11095-023-03507-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Destere A, Marquet P, Gandonnière CS, et al. A hybrid Model associating population pharmacokinetics with machine learning: a case study with iohexol clearance estimation. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2022;61(8):1157–1165. doi: 10.1007/s40262-022-01138-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes JH, Tong DMH, Burns V, et al. Clinical decision support for chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia using a hybrid pharmacodynamic/machine learning model. CPT: Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2023;12(11):1764–1776. doi: 10.1002/psp4.13019
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Du Y, Zhang Y, Yang Z, et al. Artificial neural network analysis of determinants of tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in liver transplant recipients. Ann Pharmacother. 2023;58(5):469–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damnjanović I, Tsyplakova N, Stefanović N, et al. Joint use of population pharmacokinetics and machine learning for optimizing antiepileptic treatment in pediatric population. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2023;14:20420986231181336. doi: 10.1177/20420986231181337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaber MM, Yaman B, Sarafoglou K, et al. Application of deep neural networks as a prescreening tool to assign individualized absorption models in pharmacokinetic analysis. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(6):797. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13060797
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu J, Deng K, Zhang X, et al. Neural-ODE for pharmacokinetics modeling and its advantage to alternative machine learning models in predicting new dosing regimens. iScience. 2021;24(7):102804. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choobdar S, Ahsen ME, Crawford J, et al. Assessment of network module identification across complex diseases. Nat Methods. 2019;16(9):843–852. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0509-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grinsztajn L, Oyallon E, Varoquaux G. Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data? [cited Jan 2024 19]. Available from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.08815.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rudin C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(5):206–215. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sheridan RP. The relative importance of domain applicability metrics for estimating prediction errors in QSAR varies with training set diversity. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55(6):1098–1107. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morger A, Mathea M, Achenbach JH, et al. KnowTox: pipeline and case study for confident prediction of potential toxic effects of compounds in early phases of development. J Cheminformatics. 2020;12(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s13321-020-00422-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardo F, Bentzien J, Berellini G, et al. Prediction of human clearance using in silico models with reduced bias. Mol Pharmaceutics. 2024;21(3):1192–1203. doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.3c00812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanimoto K. An elementary mathematical theory of classification and prediction. New York (USA): McGraw-Hill; 1958.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschfeld L, Swanson K, Yang K, et al. Uncertainty quantification using neural networks for molecular property prediction. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(8):3770–3780. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasudevan RK, Ziatdinov M, Vlcek L, et al. Off-the-shelf deep learning is not enough, and requires parsimony, Bayesianity, and causality. Npj Comput Mater. 2021;7(1):16. doi: 10.1038/s41524-020-00487-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busk J, Jørgensen PB, Bhowmik A, et al. Calibrated uncertainty for molecular property prediction using ensembles of message passing neural networks. Mach Learn Sci Technol. 2022;3(1):015012. doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/ac3eb3
   Google Scholar
• Li Y, Rao S, Hassaine A, et al. Deep Bayesian Gaussian processes for uncertainty estimation in electronic health records. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):20685. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-00144-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassani D, Brigo A, Andrews-Morger A. Federated learning in computational toxicology: an industrial perspective on the Effiris Hackathon. Chem Res Toxicol. 2023;36(9):1503–1517. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.3c00137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crouzet SJ, Lieberherr AM, Atz K, et al. G-PLIP: knowledge graph neural network for structure-free protein-ligand bioactivity prediction. bioRxiv. 2023 Sep 1;555977. doi: 10.1101/2023.09.01.555977
   Google Scholar
• Michoel T, Zhang JD. Causal inference in drug discovery and development. Drug Discov Today. 2023;28(10):103737. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2023.103737
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scannell JW, Bosley J, Hickman JA, et al. Predictive validity in drug discovery: what it is, why it matters and how to improve it. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2022;21(12):915–931. doi: 10.1038/s41573-022-00552-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernando K, Menon S, Jansen K, et al. Achieving end-to-end success in the clinic: Pfizer’s learnings on R&D productivity. Drug Discov Today. 2022;27(3):697–704. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2021.12.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan P, Brown DG, Lennard S, et al. Impact of a five-dimensional framework on R&D productivity at AstraZeneca. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17(3):167–181. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider G. Automating drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17(2):97–113. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin Z, Chou W-C. Machine learning and artificial intelligence in toxicological sciences. Toxicol Sci. 2022;189(1):7–19. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfac075
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribba B, Bräm DS, Baverel PG, et al. Model enhanced reinforcement learning to enable precision dosing: a theoretical case study with dosing of propofol. CPT: Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2022;11(11):1497–1510. doi: 10.1002/psp4.12858
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edginton AN. Using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling for mechanistic insight: cases of reverse translation. Clin Transl Sci. 2018;11(2):109–111. doi: 10.1111/cts.12517
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shakhnovich V. It’s time to reverse our thinking: the reverse translation research paradigm. Clin Transl Sci. 2018;11(2):98–99. doi: 10.1111/cts.12538
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasichayanula S, Venkatakrishnan K. Reverse translation: the art of cyclical learning. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103(2):152–159. doi: 10.1002/cpt.952
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar