Integrating artificial intelligence in drug discovery and early drug development: a transformative approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) can transform drug discovery and early drug development by addressing inefficiencies in traditional methods, which often face high costs, long timelines, and low success rates. In this review we provide an overview of how to integrate AI to the current drug discovery and development process, as it can enhance activities like target identification, drug discovery, and early clinical development. Through multiomics data analysis and network-based approaches, AI can help to identify novel oncogenic vulnerabilities and key therapeutic targets. AI models, such as AlphaFold, predict protein structures with high accuracy, aiding druggability assessments and structure-based drug design. AI also facilitates virtual screening and de novo drug design, creating optimized molecular structures for specific biological properties. In early clinical development, AI supports patient recruitment by analyzing electronic health records and improves trial design through predictive modeling, protocol optimization, and adaptive strategies. Innovations like synthetic control arms and digital twins can reduce logistical and ethical challenges by simulating outcomes using real-world or virtual patient data. Despite these advancements, limitations remain. AI models may be biased if trained on unrepresentative datasets, and reliance on historical or synthetic data can lead to overfitting or lack generalizability. Ethical and regulatory issues, such as data privacy, also challenge the implementation of AI. In conclusion, in this review we provide a comprehensive overview about how to integrate AI into current processes. These efforts, although they will demand collaboration between professionals, and robust data quality, have a transformative potential to accelerate drug 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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".