The Application of Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery: Opportunities and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development of technology, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of drug discovery is becoming increasingly widespread, bringing unprecedented opportunities and challenges to drug research and development. This study summarizes the main applications of AI in drug discovery, including molecular design and drug screening, optimization of drug development processes, as well as clinical trial design and data analysis. It also explores the opportunities of AI in drug discovery, including accelerating the process of drug discovery and research and development, improving the accuracy and effectiveness of drugs, and reducing research and development costs and risks. These opportunities make AI an important force in promoting the progress of drug research and development. However, AI also faces some challenges in drug discovery, requiring us to fully utilize AI technology while also paying attention to its potential risks and challenges to ensure its healthy development in drug discovery. Artificial intelligence has demonstrated tremendous potential and value in drug discovery, bringing unprecedented opportunities to drug research and development. However, we should also maintain a rational and cautious attitude, conducting thorough research and addressing the challenges faced by AI in drug discovery to ensure that it can better contribute to human health.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".