Machine learning models to accelerate the design of polymeric long-acting injectables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-acting injectables are considered one of the most promising therapeutic strategies for the treatment of chronic diseases as they can afford improved therapeutic efficacy, safety, and patient compliance. The use of polymer materials in such a drug formulation strategy can offer unparalleled diversity owing to the ability to synthesize materials with a wide range of properties. However, the interplay between multiple parameters, including the physicochemical properties of the drug and polymer, make it very difficult to intuitively predict the performance of these systems. This necessitates the development and characterization of a wide array of formulation candidates through extensive and time-consuming in vitro experimentation. Machine learning is enabling leap-step advances in a number of fields including drug discovery and materials science. The current study takes a critical step towards data-driven drug formulation development with an emphasis on long-acting injectables. Here we show that machine learning algorithms can be used to predict experimental drug release from these advanced drug delivery systems. We also demonstrate that these trained models can be used to guide the design of new long acting injectables. The implementation of the described data-driven approach has the potential to reduce the time and cost associated with drug formulation development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".