Mitigating Molecular Aggregation in Drug Discovery With Predictive Insights From Explainable AI
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
Herein, we present the application of multi-channel graph attention network (MEGAN), our explainable AI (xAI) model, for the identification of small colloidally aggregating molecules (SCAMs). This work offers solutions to the long-standing problem of false positives caused by SCAMs in high-throughput screening for drug discovery and demonstrates the power of xAI in the classification of molecular properties that are not chemically intuitive based on our current understanding. We leverage xAI insights and molecular counterfactuals to design alternatives to problematic compounds in drug screening libraries. Additionally, we experimentally validate the MEGAN prediction classification for one of the counterfactuals and demonstrate the utility of counterfactuals for altering the aggregation properties of a compound through minor structural modifications. The integration of this method in high-throughput screening approaches will help combat and circumvent false positives, providing better lead molecules more rapidly and thus accelerating drug discovery cycles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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