Polypharmacology prediction: the long road toward comprehensively anticipating small-molecule selectivity to de-risk drug discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Small molecules often bind to multiple targets, a behavior termed polypharmacology. Anticipating polypharmacology is essential for drug discovery since unknown off-targets can modulate safety and efficacy - profoundly affecting drug discovery success. Unfortunately, experimental methods to assess selectivity present significant limitations and drugs still fail in the clinic due to unanticipated off-targets. Computational methods are a cost-effective, complementary approach to predict polypharmacology. AREAS COVERED: This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of polypharmacology prediction and discuss its strengths and limitations, covering both classical cheminformatics methods and bioinformatic approaches. The authors review available data sources, paying close attention to their different coverage. The authors then discuss major algorithms grouped by the types of data that they exploit using selected examples. EXPERT OPINION: Polypharmacology prediction has made impressive progress over the last decades and contributed to identify many off-targets. However, data incompleteness currently limits most approaches to comprehensively predict selectivity. Moreover, our limited agreement on model assessment challenges the identification of the best algorithms - which at present show modest performance in prospective real-world applications. Despite these limitations, the exponential increase of multidisciplinary Big Data and AI hold much potential to better polypharmacology prediction and de-risk drug discovery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".