MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409317481 · doi:10.1126/science.adx0339

AI drug development’s data problem

2025· editorial· en· W4409317481 on OpenAlexaff
E. Richard Gold, Robert Cook‐Deegan

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDrug discoveryField (mathematics)Data scienceDrug developmentQuality (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceDrugMedicineBioinformaticsPharmacologyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The future of drug discovery may be artificial intelligence (AI), but its present is not. AI is in its infancy in the field. To help AI mature, developers need nonproprietary, open, large, high-quality datasets to train and validate models, managed by independent organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0200.012
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207