Data to Decisions: Creating a Culture of Model-Driven Drug Discovery

Stability of Prediction in Production ADMET Models as a Function of Version: Why and When Predictions Change

As with other pharma companies, we maintain production QSAR models of ADMET end points and update them regularly. Here, for six ADMET end points, we examine the predictions of test set molecules on multiple versions of random forest models spanning a period of 10 years. For any given end point, the predictions for the majority of molecules are similar for all model versions. However, for a small minority of molecules, the prediction shifts substantially over the span of a few versions. For most molecules that shift, the prediction becomes more accurate at later times. This Perspective investigates metrics that can help indicate which molecules will shift substantially in prediction and when the shift will occur.

Prediction Accuracy of Production ADMET Models as a Function of Version: Activity Cliffs Rule

As with many other institutions, our company maintains many quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models of absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) end points and updates the models regularly. We recently examined version-to-version predictivity for these models over a period of 10 years. In this approach we monitor the goodness of prediction of new molecules relative to the training set of model version V before they are incorporated in the updated model V+1. Using a cell-based permeability assay (Papp) as an example, we illustrate how the QSAR models made from this data are generally predictive and can be utilized to enrich chemical designs and synthesis. Despite the obvious utility of these models, we turned up unexpected behavior in Papp and other ADMET activities for which the explanation is not obvious. One such behavior is that the apparent predictivity of the models as measured by root-mean-square-error can vary greatly from version to version and is sometimes very poor. One intuitively appealing explanation is that the observed activities of the new molecules fall outside the bulk of activities in the training set. Alternatively, one may think that the new molecules are exploring different regions of chemical space than the training set. However, the real explanation has to do with activity cliffs. If the observed activities of the new molecules are different than expected based on similar molecules in the training set, the predictions will be less accurate. This is true for all our ADMET end points.