"Several Birds with One Stone": Exploring the Potential of AI Methods for Multi-Target Drug Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Drug discovery is a time-consuming and expensive process. Artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies have been adopted to cut costs and speed up the drug development process, serving as promising in silico approaches to efficiently design novel drug candidates targeting various health conditions. Most existing AI-driven drug discovery studies follow a single-target approach which focuses on identifying compounds that bind a single target (i.e., one-drug-one-target approach). Polypharmacology is a relatively new concept that takes a systematic approach to search for a compound (or a combination of compounds) that can bind two or more carefully selected protein biomarkers simultaneously to synergistically treat the disease. Recent studies have demonstrated that multi-target drugs offer superior therapeutic potentials compared to single-target drugs. However, it is intuitively thought that searching for multi-target drugs is more challenging than finding single-target drugs. At present, it is unclear how AI approaches perform in designing multi-target drugs. Results: In this paper, we comprehensively investigated the performance of multi-objective AI approaches for multi-target drug design. Conclusion: Our findings are quite counterintuitive demonstrating that, in fact, AI approaches for multi-target drug design are able to efficiently generate more high-quality novel compounds than the single-target approaches while satisfying a number of constraints.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".