Multi-task ADME/PK Prediction at Industrial Scale: Leveraging Large and Diverse Experimental Datasets

12 January 2024, Version 1
This content is a preprint and has not undergone peer review at the time of posting.

Abstract

ADME (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion) properties are key parameters to judge whether a drug candidate exhibits a desired pharmacokinetic (PK) profile. In this study, we tested multi-task machine learning (ML) models to predict ADME and animal PK endpoints trained on in-house data generated at Boehringer Ingelheim. Models were evaluated both at the design stage of a compound (i.e., no experimental data of test compounds available) and at testing stage when a particular assay would be conducted (i.e., experimental data of earlier conducted assays may be available). Using realistic time-splits, we found a clear benefit in performance of multi-task graph-based neural network models over single-task models, which was even stronger when experimental data of earlier assays is available. In an attempt to explain the success of multi-task models, we found that especially endpoints with the largest numbers of data points (physicochemical endpoints, clearance in microsomes) are responsible for increased predictivity in more complex ADME and PK endpoints. In summary, our study provides insight into how data for multiple ADME/PK endpoints in a pharmaceutical company can be best leveraged to optimize predictivity of ML models.

Keywords

ADME
QSAR
machine learning
multi-task learning
predictive modeling
neural networks
deep learning
pharmacokinetics

Supplementary materials

Title
Description
Actions
Title
Supporting Information
Description
information on training of Chemprop models and making predictions, models score tables, additional results figures
Actions
Title
Supporting data and code
Description
train and test splits used to train models on dataset released by Biogen. Code used to label compounds as activity cliffs.
Actions

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.
Comment number 1, W. Patrick Walters: Jan 13, 2024, 20:00

This is an interesting manuscript which makes some valuable conclusions. The paper would be much stronger if it contained statistical analyses to support the assertions of model superiority. The authors use terms like "clear difference" and "outperformed" with no statistical support. I suggest that the authors include appropriate statistics and corrections for multiple comparisons. Here are a few useful references. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10822-014-9753-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10822-016-9904-5