Supervised machine learning in drug discovery and development: Algorithms, applications, challenges, and prospects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug discovery and development is a time-consuming process that involves identifying, designing, and testing new drugs to address critical medical needs. In recent years, machine learning (ML) has played a vital role in technological advancements and has shown promising results in various drug discovery and development stages. ML can be categorized into supervised, unsupervised, semi-supervised, and reinforcement learning. Supervised learning is the most used category, helping organizations solve several real-world problems. This study presents a comprehensive survey of supervised learning algorithms in drug design and development, focusing on their learning process and succinct mathematical formulations, which are lacking in the literature. Additionally, the study discusses widely encountered challenges in applying supervised learning for drug discovery and potential solutions. This study will be beneficial to researchers and practitioners in the pharmaceutical industry as it provides a simplified yet comprehensive review of the main concepts, algorithms, challenges, and prospects in supervised learning. • Conducted a survey of supervised learning algorithms in drug design and development. • Provided mathematical formulations of these algorithms, addressing a gap in literature. • Identified challenges in applying supervised learning to drug discovery with solutions. • Presented algorithm concepts, challenges, and prospects, aiding researchers and practitioners.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it