Validating Ligand-Based ADMET Predictions: A Practical Guide to Robust ML Models for Drug Discovery

Abstract

Accurate prediction of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties is crucial for reducing late-stage drug attrition. This article provides a comprehensive framework for validating ligand-based ADMET models, addressing key challenges from foundational principles to real-world application. We explore the impact of feature representation and data quality, evaluate state-of-the-art methodologies including graph neural networks and ensemble learning, and present systematic approaches for model optimization and troubleshooting. Emphasizing rigorous validation through cross-validation with statistical testing and community blind challenges, this guide equips researchers with practical strategies to enhance the reliability and translational relevance of ADMET predictions in preclinical decision-making.

The Critical Foundation: Understanding ADMET Properties and Data Challenges

The journey of a new drug from concept to clinic is a high-stakes endeavor characterized by immense costs and a sobering likelihood of failure. A critical determinant of this outcome lies in a compound's Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties. Despite technological advances, drug development remains a highly complex, resource-intensive endeavor with substantial attrition rates [1]. Analyses indicate that approximately 40–45% of clinical attrition is attributed to ADMET liabilities, with poor bioavailability and unforeseen toxicity being major contributors [2] [1]. This reality underscores that efficacy and safety, which are directly related to ADMET properties, are fundamental challenges in pharmaceutical R&D [3].

Understanding and predicting these properties early is no longer a luxury but a strategic imperative. The integration of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to transform this landscape, offering rapid, cost-effective, and reproducible alternatives that integrate seamlessly with existing drug discovery pipelines [4]. This guide objectively compares the performance of various computational approaches for ligand-based ADMET prediction, providing researchers with validated methodologies and data to inform their model selection.

Comparative Analysis of ADMET Prediction Approaches

Performance Benchmarking of Models and Features

Rigorous benchmarking studies provide critical insights into the practical impact of feature representations and algorithm choice in ligand-based ADMET models. A structured approach that moves beyond simply concatenating different molecular representations is essential for building reliable models [5]. The following table summarizes the key findings from recent comparative studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Models and Feature Representations for ADMET Prediction

Model Category	Example Algorithms	Typical Feature Representations	Reported Advantages	Key Limitations
Tree-Based Ensembles	Random Forests (RF), LightGBM, CatBoost [5]	RDKit descriptors, Morgan fingerprints [5]	Generally strong performance; handles diverse feature types; good interpretability [5]	Performance can be dataset-dependent; may struggle with highly complex structure-property relationships [6]
Deep Learning (Graph-Based)	Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs) like Chemprop [5]	Learned graph representations from molecular structure [1]	Automatically extracts relevant features; state-of-the-art on many tasks [1] [7]	High computational cost; requires large datasets; "black box" nature complicates interpretability [1]
Deep Learning (Other)	Multitask Deep Neural Networks [2]	Learned representations from molecular SMILES or fingerprints [2]	Improved generalization by learning from correlated tasks; efficient data utilization [2]	Complex training; risk of negative transfer if tasks are not related [1]
Federated Learning	Cross-pharma collaborative models (e.g., MELLODDY) [2]	Various (e.g., fingerprints, graph features) from multiple private datasets [2]	Systematically expands model's effective domain; improves robustness without sharing proprietary data [2]	Complex infrastructure and coordination required; model interpretability challenges remain [2]

Quantitative Benchmark Results on Public Datasets

Performance evaluations on public benchmarks such as the Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) offer a standardized way to compare model efficacy. These benchmarks reveal that optimal model and feature choices can be highly dataset-dependent.

Table 2: Illustrative Benchmark Results from Public ADMET Datasets (e.g., TDC)

ADMET Endpoint	Best Performing Model	Best Feature Representation	Key Performance Metric	Comparative Note
Solubility	Random Forest / LightGBM [5]	Combined descriptors and fingerprints [5]	~0.85 R² (dataset dependent) [5]	Classical models with curated features can compete with or outperform deep learning on some datasets [5].
Metabolic Stability	Multitask Deep Neural Network [2]	Federated learning across diverse datasets [2]	Up to 40-60% reduction in prediction error [2]	Data diversity and representativeness, rather than model architecture alone, are dominant factors [2].
hERG Inhibition	Graph Neural Network (GNN) [1]	Learned graph representations [1]	High AUC-ROC (dataset dependent) [1] [7]	GNNs excel at capturing complex structural relationships relevant to toxicity endpoints [7].
Bioavailability	Ensemble Methods [1]	Multimodal data integration (structure, physicochemical) [1]	Outperforms single-model approaches [1]	Ensemble methods reduce variance and improve generalization [1].

Experimental Protocols for Model Validation

A Rigorous Workflow for Benchmarking Ligand-Based Models

To ensure the reliability and practical significance of ADMET models, a rigorous and structured experimental protocol is essential. The following workflow, derived from benchmarking studies, outlines key steps from data preparation to final validation.

Detailed Methodological Breakdown

Data Cleaning and Curation

• Inorganic Salt Removal: Eliminate organometallic compounds and inorganic salts from datasets [5].
• Parent Compound Standardization: Extract the organic parent compound from salt forms to ensure consistency [5].
• Tautomer and SMILES Standardization: Adjust tautomers to consistent functional group representations and canonicalize SMILES strings using tools like the standardisation tool by Atkinson et al. [5].
• De-duplication: Remove duplicate entries, keeping the first entry if target values are consistent, or removing the entire group if inconsistent. For regression tasks, consistency is defined as within 20% of the inter-quartile range [5].

Model Training and Evaluation

• Baseline Model Establishment: Select a initial model architecture (e.g., Random Forest) as a baseline for further optimization [5].
• Iterative Feature Combination: Systematically combine different molecular representations (e.g., RDKit descriptors, Morgan fingerprints, neural network embeddings) to identify high-performing combinations, rather than using arbitrary concatenation [5].
• Scaffold-Based Splitting: Use scaffold-based data splits to evaluate the model's ability to generalize to novel chemical structures, providing a more challenging and realistic assessment than random splits [5].
• Hyperparameter Tuning: Perform dataset-specific hyperparameter optimization to maximize model performance [5].

Statistical Validation and Practical Testing

• Cross-Validation with Hypothesis Testing: Integrate cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing (e.g., t-tests) to compare model performances and ensure that observed improvements are statistically significant, not due to random chance [5].
• Hold-Out Set Evaluation: Assess the final model performance on a held-out test set that was not used during training or validation [5].
• External Validation on Different Data Sources: Evaluate models trained on one data source (e.g., public data) using a test set from a completely different source (e.g., in-house corporate data). This "practical scenario" test is crucial for assessing real-world applicability [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

A range of public databases and software platforms are indispensable for developing and validating ligand-based ADMET models. The following table catalogs key resources.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents, Databases, and Platforms for ADMET Modeling

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in ADMET Research	Key Features / Use Cases
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) [5]	Curated Database	Provides standardized, public datasets and benchmarks for ADMET-associated properties.	Facilitates fair model comparison; includes scaffold splits for training/validation [5].
RDKit [7]	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Calculates molecular descriptors and fingerprints for use as model features.	Generates RDKit descriptors, Morgan fingerprints; fundamental for feature engineering [5] [7].
Chemprop [5]	Deep Learning Software	Implements Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs) for molecular property prediction.	Specialized for graph-based learning; uses molecular structure as direct input [5].
kMoL [2]	Machine Learning Library	Open-source and federated learning library designed for drug discovery tasks.	Supports development of models across distributed datasets without centralizing data [2].
ADMETlab 2.0 [4]	Integrated Online Platform	Provides comprehensive predictions for a wide array of ADMET properties via a web interface.	Useful for rapid, single-compound profiling and validation of internal model results [4].
Biogen In Vitro ADME Dataset [5]	Experimental Dataset	Publicly available in vitro ADME data for non-proprietary small-molecule compounds.	Serves as a valuable external validation set to test model transferability [5].

Visualizing the Integrated ADMET Prediction Framework

Modern ADMET prediction platforms are sophisticated, multi-layered systems. The following diagram illustrates the core framework that integrates data, computational methods, and predictive output, which is foundational to many contemporary tools.

The high stakes of ADMET properties in clinical success and attrition are clear. This comparison guide demonstrates that while no single model dominates all ADMET endpoints, rigorous methodologies—careful feature selection, scaffold-based splitting, statistical validation, and external testing—are paramount for building trustworthy predictive models. The field is moving beyond isolated model benchmarks towards integrated frameworks that leverage diverse data, often through federated learning, and prioritize generalizability to novel chemical space and real-world industrial data. By adopting these rigorous protocols and understanding the comparative landscape of available tools, researchers can significantly bolster the confidence in their ligand-based ADMET predictions, thereby de-risking the drug development pipeline and increasing the likelihood of clinical success.

Accurate prediction of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties is fundamental to reducing the approximately 40-45% of clinical attrition attributed to pharmacokinetics and safety liabilities [2]. While machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) methodologies have revolutionized ADMET prediction, their performance is fundamentally constrained by the quality of the underlying training data. Recent studies consistently demonstrate that data diversity and representativeness, rather than model architecture alone, are the dominant factors driving predictive accuracy and generalization [5] [2]. Public ADMET datasets, while invaluable resources, present significant challenges including inconsistent experimental results, duplicate measurements with varying values, heterogeneous assay conditions, and insufficient representation of drug-like chemical space. This comprehensive analysis examines the critical data quality issues plaguing public ADMET datasets, evaluates current mitigation methodologies, and provides objective comparisons of emerging solutions and platforms.

Critical Data Quality Challenges in Public ADMET Datasets

Fundamental Limitations in Current Benchmark Datasets

Table 1: Key Limitations of Existing Public ADMET Datasets

Limitation Category	Specific Issue	Impact on Model Performance
Dataset Scale	Small fraction of publicly available data utilized (e.g., ESOL: 1,128 compounds vs. >14,000 in PubChem) [8]	Limited chemical diversity reduces model generalizability
Chemical Representativeness	Mean molecular weight in ESOL: 203.9 Da vs. drug discovery range: 300-800 Da [8]	Poor performance on real-world drug discovery compounds
Experimental Variability	Same compound showing different values under different conditions (e.g., solubility varying with pH, buffer) [8]	Introduces noise and contradictions in training data
Data Consistency	Inconsistent SMILES representations, fragmented strings, duplicate measurements with varying values [5]	Compromises data integrity and model reliability
Annotation Quality	Different binary labels for same SMILES across train/test sets [5]	Fundamental flaws in evaluation benchmarks

Specific Data Quality Issues and Their Origins

The variability in experimental conditions presents a particularly challenging aspect of ADMET data curation. For aqueous solubility alone, values for identical compounds can vary significantly based on buffer composition, pH levels, and experimental procedures [8]. This biological assay heterogeneity compounds fundamental data cleanliness issues, where studies have reported "inconsistent SMILES representations and multiple organic compounds found in a single fragmented SMILES string, to duplicate measurements with varying values and inconsistent binary labels" [5]. The Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC), while valuable, exhibits these limitations, prompting researchers to implement extensive data cleaning procedures that typically result in the removal of substantial portions of original data [5].

Standardized Protocols for ADMET Data Curation

Comprehensive Data Cleaning Workflow

Experimental Protocol: Data Cleaning and Standardization

Based on benchmarking research by [5]

Objective: To generate consistent, high-quality ADMET datasets from raw public sources by eliminating noise and contradictions.

Methodology Steps:

• Remove inorganic salts and organometallic compounds from all datasets using predefined elemental filters.

• Extract organic parent compounds from their salt forms using a standardized salt-splitting protocol.

• Adjust tautomers to achieve consistent functional group representation across all molecular entries.

• Canonicalize SMILES strings using standardized algorithms to ensure uniform molecular representation.

• De-duplication procedure: For duplicate entries, keep the first entry if target values are consistent (identical for binary tasks, within 20% of inter-quartile range for regression tasks); remove entire duplicate groups if values are inconsistent [5].

The following workflow diagram illustrates this comprehensive data cleaning process:

Advanced Data Mining with Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Experimental Protocol: LLM-Powered Experimental Condition Extraction

Based on PharmaBench development methodology [8]

Objective: To systematically extract and standardize experimental conditions from unstructured assay descriptions in public databases.

Methodology:

The protocol employs a sophisticated multi-agent LLM system consisting of three specialized components:

• Keyword Extraction Agent (KEA): Analyzes assay descriptions to identify and summarize key experimental conditions specific to each ADMET endpoint.

• Example Forming Agent (EFA): Generates structured examples of experimental condition extraction based on KEA output for few-shot learning.

• Data Mining Agent (DMA): Processes all assay descriptions to systematically identify and extract experimental conditions using the generated examples [8].

This system enabled the processing of 14,401 bioassays from ChEMBL, extracting critical experimental parameters that are essential for normalizing results across different studies [8].

Emerging Solutions and Platform Comparisons

Next-Generation Benchmark Datasets

Table 2: Comparison of ADMET Benchmark Datasets

Dataset	Size (Entries)	Key Features	Data Quality Innovations
PharmaBench [8]	52,482	Eleven ADMET properties	Multi-agent LLM system for experimental condition extraction; rigorous standardization
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) [5]	~100,000+	28 ADMET-related datasets	Integrated multiple curated sources; benchmark group leaderboard
admetSAR 2.0 [9]	18 endpoints	Comprehensive web server with scoring function	Manually curated models with accuracy metrics for each endpoint
Benchmark-ADMET-2025 [10]	Multiple integrated sources	Focus on foundation model era evaluation	Advanced splitting strategies (scaffold, perimeter) for OOD testing

PharmaBench represents a significant advancement in scale and quality, addressing key limitations of previous benchmarks by incorporating 156,618 raw entries processed through a rigorous workflow that specifically addresses experimental condition variability [8]. The dataset's development involved an extensive data mining process that analyzed 14,401 different bioassays using GPT-4 based agents to extract critical experimental parameters [8].

Platform Performance and Capability Comparison

Table 3: ADMET Prediction Platform Capabilities

Platform	Core Technology	Data Foundation	Key Differentiators	Limitations
ADMET-AI [11]	Chemprop-RDKit graph neural network	41 ADMET datasets from TDC	Highest average rank on TDC leaderboard; fastest web-based predictor; DrugBank reference comparison (2,579 drugs)	Web interface limited to 1,000 molecules per batch
admetSAR 2.0 [9]	SVM, RF, kNN with molecular fingerprints	18 curated ADMET endpoints	ADMET-score integrating multiple properties; extensive validation against DrugBank, ChEMBL, withdrawn drugs	Limited to pre-defined endpoints; less flexible than GNN approaches
Federated ADMET Network [2]	Cross-pharma federated learning	Distributed proprietary datasets	Expands chemical space coverage without data sharing; 40-60% error reduction in Polaris Challenge	Requires participation in consortium; complex implementation

ADMET-AI currently demonstrates leading performance metrics, achieving the highest average rank on the TDC ADMET Benchmark Group leaderboard while maintaining the fastest prediction times among web-based tools [11]. Its graph neural network architecture, specifically Chemprop-RDKit, was trained on 41 ADMET datasets from TDC and provides both regression predictions (with appropriate units) and classification outputs (as probabilities) [11].

Advanced Modeling Approaches Addressing Data Limitations

Federated learning approaches have emerged as a promising solution to data scarcity and diversity challenges. The MELLODDY project demonstrated that cross-pharma federated learning at unprecedented scale unlocks benefits in QSAR without compromising proprietary information [2]. Key findings indicate that federation systematically extends the model's effective domain, with models demonstrating increased robustness when predicting across unseen scaffolds and assay modalities [2].

For cytochrome P450 metabolism prediction specifically, graph-based approaches including Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) and Graph Attention Networks (GATs) have shown particular promise in addressing data quality challenges by better capturing complex molecular interactions [12].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Application in ADMET Research
RDKit [5]	Cheminformatics toolkit	Molecular descriptor calculation and fingerprint generation	Fundamental for molecular representation and feature engineering
Chemprop [11]	Graph Neural Network	Message Passing Neural Networks for molecular property prediction	Core architecture of ADMET-AI; state-of-the-art on TDC benchmarks
GPT-4 [8]	Large Language Model	Extraction of experimental conditions from unstructured text	Powers multi-agent data mining system in PharmaBench development
TDC [5]	Data Commons	Curated benchmark datasets and evaluation framework	Standardized evaluation and comparison of ADMET prediction models
Scaffold Split Methods [10]	Data partitioning algorithm	Separate molecules based on core chemical structure	Tests model generalizability to novel chemical scaffolds
Federated Learning Framework [2]	Privacy-preserving ML	Collaborative training across distributed datasets	Expands chemical space coverage without data centralization

The advancement of reliable ADMET prediction models remains intrinsically linked to resolving fundamental data quality challenges in public datasets. Current research demonstrates that systematic data cleaning protocols, LLM-powered curation pipelines, sophisticated benchmarking datasets like PharmaBench, and innovative approaches such as federated learning are collectively addressing these limitations. The objective comparison of platforms presented herein reveals that while tools like ADMET-AI currently lead in performance metrics, the field is rapidly evolving toward more data-centric approaches that prioritize chemical diversity, experimental consistency, and real-world relevance. Future progress will likely depend on continued collaboration across the research community to expand high-quality dataset coverage while developing more sophisticated methods for addressing the inherent noise and variability in experimental ADMET measurements.

In the field of computational drug discovery, the reliability of ligand-based Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) predictions is fundamentally constrained by the quality of the underlying chemical data. Dirty data, characterized by inconsistent molecular representations and duplicate entries, directly undermines model performance and generalizability, leading to unreliable predictions in critical preclinical assessments [5]. As machine learning (ML) approaches become increasingly central to ADMET modeling, establishing rigorous, systematic data cleaning protocols has emerged as an essential prerequisite for building trustworthy predictive systems.

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of data cleaning methodologies, with a specific focus on SMILES standardization and duplicate removal within the context of ADMET prediction validation. We objectively evaluate the performance of various approaches, supported by experimental data, to offer drug development professionals a clear framework for implementing robust data cleaning protocols that enhance the reliability of their computational models.

The Critical Role of Data Cleaning in ADMET Prediction

Data cleaning is not merely a preliminary step but a foundational component that significantly influences every subsequent stage in the ADMET modeling pipeline. Public ADMET datasets are frequently criticized for data cleanliness issues, including inconsistent SMILES representations, fragmented molecular strings, duplicate measurements with conflicting values, and inconsistent binary labels across training and test sets [5]. These errors introduce noise that directly compromises model performance.

The impact of dirty data extends beyond technical metrics to practical research outcomes. Inconsistent data leads to flawed analysis, erodes customer trust, wastes computational resources, and ultimately undermines strategic decision-making in drug development pipelines [13]. As highlighted in recent benchmarking studies, the selection of compound representations in ADMET models is often not justified or analyzed with limited scope, with many approaches concatenating multiple compound representations without systematic reasoning [5]. This practice underscores the need for standardized preprocessing protocols that ensure data quality before model training begins.

SMILES Standardization Techniques

The Challenge of SMILES Redundancy

The Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) remains a widely used molecular representation in cheminformatics, but it suffers from inherent redundancy where multiple distinct strings can describe the same molecule [14]. This variability arises from permissible syntactic variations within the language, including Kekulé vs. aromatic syntax, differing branch ordering, and alternative ring numbering conventions. For example, 2-(aminomethyl)benzoic acid can be represented by multiple valid SMILES strings, including "NCC1CCCCC1C(=O)O" (Kekulé syntax) and "NCc1ccccc1C(O)O" (aromatic syntax) [14].

This redundancy presents significant challenges for ML models, which may treat these equivalent representations as distinct entities, thereby learning inconsistent structure-property relationships. The problem is particularly acute in large-scale virtual screening and machine learning applications where consistent featurization is essential for model performance.

Standardization Approaches

TokenSMILES: A Grammatical Framework

TokenSMILES addresses SMILES redundancy through a grammatical framework that standardizes SMILES into structured sentences composed of context-free words. The approach applies five key syntactic constraints to minimize redundant enumerations while maintaining valence and octet compliance through semantic parsing rules [14]:

• Branch limitations that control the depth and complexity of nested branches
• Balanced parentheses ensuring proper closure of branch notations
• Aromaticity exclusion that standardizes aromatic system representation
• Canonical atom ordering that follows consistent traversal paths
• Ring closure standardization that applies consistent numbering schemes

The TokenSMILES methodology transforms the Kekulé syntax into a standardized form that equalizes string lengths and isolates chemical information by assigning individual tokens to each atom and symbol. This tokenization follows two sequential rules: first, parsing the original string into individual characters enclosed in square brackets, and second, categorizing tokens according to their syntactic context (left-context vs. right-context symbols) [14].

Practical Implementation and Comparison

Implementation of TokenSMILES is available through SmilX, an open-source tool that generates valid SMILES with accuracy comparable to existing computational implementations for molecules with low hydrogen deficiency (HDI ≤ 4) [14]. The system has demonstrated applicability beyond alkanes through stoichiometric modifications including bond insertion, cyclization, and heteroatom substitution.

Table 1: Comparison of SMILES Standardization Approaches

Method	Core Principle	Reduction in Redundancy	Limitations
TokenSMILES	Grammatical constraints and tokenization	Substantial for alkanes and moderate HDI systems	Challenges with highly unsaturated systems
DeepSMILES	Simplified parenthesis handling	Moderate	Altered syntax requires specialized parsers
SELFIES	Guaranteed validity through grammatical constraints	High through guaranteed valid structures	Less human-readable representation
Traditional Canonicalization	Unique traversal algorithms	Varies by implementation	Does not address all syntactic variations

Duplicate Removal Methodologies

The Duplicate Detection Challenge in Chemical Data

Duplicate records in chemical databases manifest in various forms, from exact molecular duplicates to more challenging cases where the same compound appears with different salt components, tautomeric forms, or stereochemical representations. In ADMET datasets, this problem is compounded by duplicate measurements with varying experimental values, creating inconsistencies that directly impact model training and evaluation [5].

The duplicate removal challenge is particularly acute in clinical trials registry records, where the same study can appear across multiple registries with different formatting, field mappings, and identifier systems. While this problem originates in clinical research, it presents analogous challenges to chemical database management, where the same compound may be represented with different SMILES strings, naming conventions, or identifier systems [15].

Deduplication Techniques

Structured Multi-Stage Deduplication

A robust deduplication strategy for chemical data requires a multi-stage approach that progresses from simple exact matching to sophisticated fuzzy matching algorithms:

• Step 1: Exact Matching - Identify and merge records that are identical across key fields such as canonical SMILES, InChI keys, or compound identifiers. This serves as the simplest and safest first step [13] [16].
• Step 2: Structural Standardization - Apply standardization protocols to normalize representations, including salt removal, tautomer normalization, and stereochemistry specification [5].
• Step 3: Fuzzy Matching - Implement algorithms that can identify non-exact matches based on structural similarities, accounting for variations in salt components, tautomeric forms, or stereochemical representations [13].
• Step 4: Confidence Scoring - Assign confidence scores to potential duplicates, allowing high-confidence matches to be merged automatically while flagging lower-confidence ones for manual review [13].
• Step 5: Validation - Test deduplication rules on sample datasets before full implementation to avoid unintended data loss [13].

Unique Identifier-Based Deduplication

For scenarios where unique identifiers are available, such as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT numbers or registry IDs in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), a separate deduplication process can yield significantly better results than generic automated approaches [15]. This method is particularly valuable when records lack consistent metadata across sources but share unique study identifiers.

In a recent evaluation, this identifier-focused approach demonstrated 100% precision and 100% recall in identifying duplicates between CTG and ICTRP databases, outperforming automated systems which achieved only 76.8% recall in the same task [15]. The process can be implemented using reference management software like EndNote, which allows batch editing and manipulation of deduplication parameters [15].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Deduplication Methods

Method	Precision	Recall	Best Application Context
Identifier-Based Deduplication	100% [15]	100% [15]	Records with unique IDs across sources
Automated Systematic Review Tools	100% [15]	76.8% [15]	Bibliographic records with consistent metadata
Multi-Stage Chemical Deduplication	Not explicitly quantified	Not explicitly quantified	Chemical databases with structural variations
Manual Review	High (varies)	High (varies)	Small datasets or high-value records

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Comprehensive Data Cleaning Protocol for ADMET Datasets

Based on recent benchmarking studies, the following step-by-step protocol has been developed specifically for preparing ADMET datasets for machine learning applications:

Step 1: SMILES Standardization

• Remove inorganic salts and organometallic compounds from the datasets
• Extract organic parent compounds from their salt forms
• Adjust tautomers to have consistent functional group representation
• Canonicalize SMILES strings using standardized algorithms [5]

Step 2: Duplicate Identification and Resolution

• Identify duplicate records based on canonical SMILES
• For duplicates with consistent target values, keep the first entry
• For duplicates with inconsistent target values, remove the entire group to maintain data integrity
• Define "consistent" as exactly the same for binary tasks, and within 20% of the inter-quartile range for regression tasks [5]

Step 3: Data Transformation

• Apply log-transformation to highly skewed distributions for specific ADMET endpoints
• For TDC datasets including clearancemicrosomeaz, halflifeobach and vdss_lombardo, compute metrics on log-transformed values instead of original ones [5]

Step 4: Visual Inspection

• For relatively small datasets, conduct visual inspection of resultant clean datasets using tools like DataWarrior [5]

Workflow Visualization

Data Cleaning Workflow for ADMET Datasets

Impact on Model Performance and Practical Applications

Empirical Evidence from ADMET Benchmarking

Recent systematic evaluations demonstrate the tangible impact of data cleaning on model performance in ADMET prediction tasks. In one comprehensive study, researchers applied rigorous data cleaning procedures resulting in the removal of a number of compounds across datasets due to inconsistencies, duplicates, and representation issues [5]. This cleaning process enabled more reliable feature selection and model evaluation, ultimately supporting more dependable model assessments through integrated cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing.

The benchmarking revealed that the optimal combination of machine learning algorithms and compound representations is highly dataset-dependent for ADMET prediction tasks, reinforcing the importance of clean, consistent data for identifying these optimal configurations [5]. Without systematic cleaning, the noise introduced by representation inconsistencies and duplicates obscures the true relationship between model architecture and performance.

Case Study: Deduplication in Clinical Trials Data

While not directly from ADMET research, a recent evaluation of deduplication methods in clinical trials registry data provides compelling evidence for the importance of specialized deduplication approaches. The study found that:

• Automated systematic review tools like Covidence demonstrated 100% precision but only 76.8% recall when processing registry records from ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP [15]
• A specialized identifier-based deduplication method achieved both 100% precision and 100% recall for the same dataset [15]
• Automated tools mistakenly flagged unique records as duplicates (false positives) while missing substantial numbers of true duplicates (false negatives) [15]

These findings highlight the limitations of generic deduplication approaches when applied to specialized scientific data and underscore the need for domain-specific solutions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools for Chemical Data Cleaning

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function	Application Context
SMILES Standardization	SmilX (TokenSMILES) [14], RDKit [5], Standardisation tool by Atkinson et al. [5]	Canonicalization and grammatical standardization of molecular representations	Preparing consistent input features for ML models
Deduplication Platforms	EndNote (desktop) [15], Covidence [15], SRA deduplicator [15]	Identification and merging of duplicate records	Maintaining unique molecular entries in databases
Cheminformatics Toolkits	RDKit [5], DeepChem [5]	Molecular manipulation, featurization, and analysis	General chemical data preprocessing and transformation
Data Visualization & Inspection	DataWarrior [5]	Visual data quality assessment	Identifying patterns, outliers, and anomalies in chemical datasets
Data Validation	Great Expectations [13], AWS Glue DataBrew [13]	Automated validation against business rules	Ensuring data quality standards pre- and post-cleaning

Systematic data cleaning protocols, particularly SMILES standardization and duplicate removal, are not merely preliminary steps but foundational components for validating ligand-based ADMET predictions. The empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that specialized approaches, such as TokenSMILES for molecular standardization and identifier-based methods for duplicate removal, significantly outperform generic solutions in both precision and recall.

As the field moves toward more complex model architectures and representations, the principles of grammatical standardization, structured deduplication, and systematic validation will become increasingly critical. By implementing the protocols and methodologies compared in this guide, researchers can establish a robust foundation for ADMET prediction models that are both accurate and reliable, ultimately accelerating the drug discovery process while reducing late-stage attrition due to poor pharmacokinetic or toxicity profiles.

In the field of computational drug discovery, the reliable prediction of a compound's Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties is a critical determinant of its viability as a drug candidate [5]. The foundation of any ligand-based predictive model lies in its molecular representation—the method of translating chemical structures into a computer-readable format that algorithms can process [17]. These representations bridge the gap between chemical structures and their biological, chemical, or physical properties, serving as the essential input for machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models [17]. The choice between classical, rule-based descriptors and modern, deep-learned features significantly influences model performance, interpretability, and generalizability. This guide objectively compares these two paradigms within the context of validating ligand-based ADMET predictions, providing researchers with experimental data and methodologies to inform their model selection.

Classical Molecular Representations: Rule-Based Feature Engineering

Classical molecular representation methods rely on explicit, rule-based feature extraction derived from chemical and physical properties [17]. They are the product of decades of cheminformatics research and are highly valued for their interpretability and computational efficiency.

Key Types and Examples

• Molecular Descriptors: These are numerical values that quantify specific physical or chemical properties of a molecule. Examples include molecular weight, hydrophobicity (LogP), topological indices, and counts of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors. They are often calculated using toolkits like RDKit [5].
• Molecular Fingerprints: These are typically binary strings (bits) that encode the presence or absence of specific substructures or patterns within a molecule. A prime example is the Extended-Connectivity Fingerprint (ECFP), which captures local atomic environments and is invaluable for representing complex molecules [17]. Other types include functional connectivity fingerprints (FCFP4) [5].

Applications in ADMET Prediction

Classical representations have been successfully applied to various ADMET tasks. For instance, the FP-ADMET and MapLight frameworks combined different molecular fingerprints with ML models to establish robust prediction frameworks for a wide range of ADMET-related properties [17]. Similarly, BoostSweet leveraged a soft-vote ensemble model based on LightGBM, combining layered fingerprints with alvaDesc molecular descriptors to predict molecular sweetness [17].

Deep-Learned Molecular Representations: Data-Driven Feature Learning

Modern AI-driven approaches have shifted the paradigm from predefined rules to data-driven learning [17]. These methods employ deep learning models to automatically learn continuous, high-dimensional feature embeddings directly from raw molecular data.

Key Architectures and Methods

• Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): Models such as Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs) directly operate on a molecule's graph structure, where atoms are represented as nodes and bonds as edges. This naturally captures the topological information of the molecule [5].
• Language Model-Based Representations: Inspired by natural language processing (NLP), models like Transformers treat molecular sequences (e.g., SMILES or SELFIES) as a specialized chemical language. They tokenize these strings and learn contextual embeddings for each token [17].
• Other Advanced Methods: The field also includes high-dimensional features-based, multimodal-based, and contrastive learning-based approaches, which can capture complex, non-linear relationships in the data that are difficult to predefine with rules [17].

Experimental Comparison and Benchmarking

Independent benchmarking studies provide critical, empirical data for comparing the performance of classical and deep-learned representations across practical ADMET prediction tasks.

Performance Across ADMET Datasets

The following table summarizes key findings from a comprehensive benchmarking study that evaluated various algorithms and compound representations across multiple public ADMET datasets [5].

Representation Type	Example Algorithms	Key Strengths	Typical Application Context
Classical Descriptors & Fingerprints	Random Forests (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), LightGBM	High interpretability, computational efficiency, performs well on smaller datasets [5] [17]	Initial screening, resource-constrained environments, when model explainability is critical
Deep-Learned Representations	Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNN), Transformer-based Models	Superior performance on complex endpoints, automatic feature extraction, reduced need for expert knowledge [5] [17]	Large, complex datasets (e.g., metabolic stability, toxicity), when exploring broad chemical space

Table 1: A high-level comparison of classical and deep-learned molecular representation approaches.

Insights from a Computational Blind Challenge

The 2025 ASAP-Polaris-OpenADMET Antiviral Challenge provided a unique opportunity for a rigorous, blind test of modeling strategies. A key insight from this challenge was that the superiority of a method is often task-dependent [18]:

• Classical Methods remain highly competitive for predicting compound potency (e.g., pIC50 for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro) [18].
• Modern Deep Learning algorithms, however, significantly outperformed traditional machine learning in ADME prediction [18].

This underscores the importance of selecting a representation type based on the specific prediction target.

Experimental Protocols for Model Validation

For researchers seeking to validate these findings or benchmark their own models, the following methodological details are essential.

Data Curation and Cleaning

The reliability of any model is contingent on data quality. A robust cleaning protocol includes [5]:

• Removing inorganic salts and organometallic compounds.
• Extracting the organic parent compound from salt forms.
• Adjusting tautomers to achieve consistent functional group representation.
• Canonicalizing SMILES strings.
• De-duplication: Keeping the first entry if target values are consistent, or removing the entire group if they are inconsistent. Consistency is defined as identical for binary tasks and within 20% of the inter-quartile range for regression tasks.

Model Training and Evaluation Methodology

A structured approach to model evaluation, as used in benchmarking studies, involves [5]:

• Iterative Feature Selection: Systematically testing and combining different molecular representations (e.g., RDKit descriptors, Morgan fingerprints, and deep-learned embeddings) rather than arbitrary concatenation.
• Hyperparameter Tuning: Conducting dataset-specific optimization of model architectures.
• Robust Model Comparison: Integrating cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing to assess the statistical significance of performance differences, adding a layer of reliability beyond a simple hold-out test set [5].
• Practical Validation: Evaluating models trained on one data source (e.g., public data) on a test set from a different source (e.g., in-house data) to simulate real-world application.

Figure 1: A generalized workflow for benchmarking molecular representation approaches in ADMET prediction, highlighting key steps from data curation to model validation.

The table below details key software tools, datasets, and resources essential for conducting research in molecular representation and ADMET prediction.

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to ADMET
RDKit	Software Toolkit	Calculates classical molecular descriptors and fingerprints [5]	Generates interpretable, rule-based features for model training
Chemprop	Software Framework	Implements Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs) for molecules [5]	Provides state-of-the-art deep learning models for molecular property prediction
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC)	Data Resource	Provides curated public datasets and benchmarks for ADMET-associated properties [5]	Serves as a standard source for training and benchmarking data
Deep-PK	Predictive Platform	Predicts pharmacokinetics using graph-based descriptors and multitask learning [19]	Specialized platform for key ADMET endpoints
AlvaDesc	Software Toolkit	Calculates a comprehensive set of molecular descriptors [17]	Used to generate a wide array of features for QSAR/ADMET models

Table 2: A selection of key resources for computational researchers working on molecular representation and ADMET prediction.

The comparison between classical descriptors and deep-learned features reveals a nuanced landscape. Classical methods, with their computational efficiency and interpretability, remain a robust choice for many tasks, particularly with smaller datasets or when predicting compound potency [18] [5]. Conversely, deep-learned representations offer a powerful, data-driven alternative that can automatically extract complex features and has demonstrated significant advantages in certain ADME prediction challenges [18] [19].

The choice is not necessarily mutually exclusive. Hybrid approaches that combine the interpretability of classical descriptors with the predictive power of deep learning are an active area of research. Furthermore, the field is moving towards addressing challenges such as data quality, model interpretability, and generalizability. Future directions include the integration of structure-guided modeling, hybrid AI-quantum frameworks, and multi-omics integration, all poised to further accelerate the discovery of safer and more effective therapeutics [19] [17]. For now, the optimal molecular representation depends critically on the specific endpoint, data availability, and the required balance between performance and interpretability.

Advanced Methodologies: Implementing State-of-the-Art ML Approaches

The selection of appropriate machine learning algorithms is a critical determinant of success in computational drug discovery, particularly for predicting the Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties of candidate molecules. Accurately forecasting these pharmacokinetic and safety profiles early in the development pipeline significantly reduces late-stage attrition rates and accelerates the delivery of viable therapeutics [5] [20]. While numerous machine learning approaches exist, three algorithm families consistently demonstrate superior performance for structured molecular data: Random Forests (RF), Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM), and Deep Neural Networks (DNN). This guide provides an objective comparison of these algorithms within the specific context of validating ligand-based ADMET predictions, enabling researchers to make informed selections based on empirical evidence, dataset characteristics, and practical constraints.

The challenge of algorithm selection extends beyond raw predictive accuracy to encompass considerations of data volume, feature representation, computational resources, and interpretability needs. As noted in benchmarking studies, the optimal model and feature choices can be highly dataset-dependent for ADMET endpoints, necessitating a nuanced understanding of each algorithm's strengths and limitations [5]. This review synthesizes evidence from recent ADMET-focused studies and broader machine learning comparisons to establish a framework for algorithm selection grounded in both theoretical principles and empirical results.

Random Forests

Random Forests constitute an ensemble learning method that operates by constructing a multitude of decision trees during training. The algorithm introduces randomness through two primary mechanisms: bootstrap sampling of the training data (bagging) and random subset selection of features at each split point. This randomness ensures individual trees remain diverse, with the final prediction typically determined by majority voting (classification) or averaging (regression) across all trees in the forest [21] [22].

The key advantage of this approach lies in its inherent variance reduction compared to single decision trees, while simultaneously mitigating overfitting through the collective decision-making process. For ligand-based ADMET prediction, where datasets may contain substantial noise from experimental measurements, this robustness proves particularly valuable [23]. Additionally, Random Forests naturally provide feature importance metrics by tracking how much each feature decreases impurity across all trees, offering valuable insights into which molecular descriptors most significantly influence ADMET properties.

Gradient Boosting Machines

Gradient Boosting Machines represent a different ensemble philosophy based on sequential model building rather than parallel tree construction. Unlike Random Forests, which build trees independently, GBM constructs trees one at a time, with each new tree trained to correct the residual errors made by the previous ensemble [21] [22]. The algorithm operates by optimizing an arbitrary differentiable loss function using gradient descent, where each new tree approximates the negative gradient (direction of steepest descent) of the loss function.

Formally, at iteration ( m ), GBM updates the model as follows: [ Fm(x) = F{m-1}(x) + \betam hm(x) ] where ( F{m-1}(x) ) represents the existing ensemble, ( hm(x) ) is the new weak learner (typically a decision tree), and ( \beta_m ) controls the learning rate [21]. This sequential error-correction mechanism enables GBMs to capture complex, non-linear relationships in data through an additive model structure, often achieving state-of-the-art performance on tabular datasets common in cheminformatics [24]. Modern implementations like LightGBM, XGBoost, and CatBoost have further enhanced performance through optimized computing architectures and specialized handling of categorical features.

Deep Neural Networks

Deep Neural Networks comprise interconnected layers of artificial neurons that learn hierarchical representations of input data through multiple transformations. In drug discovery contexts, DNNs can process various molecular representations—including molecular descriptors, fingerprints, and more recently, learned representations from SMILES strings or molecular graphs [25] [20]. Unlike tree-based methods that require predefined feature representations, certain DNN architectures can automatically extract relevant features from raw molecular representations.

The transformative potential of DNNs lies in their capacity to model extremely complex functions and discover intricate patterns without explicit feature engineering [21] [26]. For ADMET prediction, specialized architectures such as Message Passing Neural Networks (as implemented in Chemprop) and Transformer-based models (like MSformer-ADMET) have demonstrated remarkable performance by directly learning from molecular structure [5] [20]. However, this flexibility comes with substantial data requirements and computational costs, making them most suitable for scenarios with large, high-quality datasets and sufficient computational resources.

Performance Comparison in ADMET Prediction

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Recent benchmarking studies provide empirical evidence of algorithm performance across diverse ADMET prediction tasks. The following table summarizes key findings from comparative evaluations:

Table 1: Performance comparison of algorithms across ADMET prediction tasks

Algorithm	ADMET Task	Performance Metrics	Key Findings	Source
LightGBM (Gradient Boosting)	Anticancer ligand prediction	90.33% accuracy, AUROC: 97.31%	Superior prediction accuracy with good generalizability	[24]
Random Forest	Various ADMET benchmarks	Highly variable across endpoints	Optimal model choice highly dataset-dependent	[5]
Gradient Boosting	ADMET feature representation studies	Competitive performance	Often outperforms RF on complex, structured datasets	[21] [5]
Deep Neural Networks (MSformer-ADMET)	22 TDC ADMET tasks	Superior performance across multiple endpoints	Outperformed conventional SMILES-based and graph-based models	[20]
Random Forest	Small dataset ADMET prediction	More stable performance	Advantageous for smaller or noisier datasets	[5] [23]

Analysis of Performance Patterns

The quantitative evidence reveals several important patterns for algorithm selection in ADMET contexts. Gradient Boosting implementations, particularly LightGBM, have demonstrated exceptional performance in specific prediction tasks such as anticancer ligand identification, achieving 90.33% accuracy with 97.31% AUROC in independent testing [24]. This aligns with the broader pattern that well-tuned GBMs often achieve the highest accuracy on structured datasets with complex feature interactions [21].

However, Random Forests maintain important advantages in certain scenarios, particularly with smaller or noisier datasets commonly encountered in early-stage drug discovery [23]. Studies note that while Gradient Boosting may achieve higher peak performance, Random Forests provide more consistent results across diverse ADMET endpoints where the optimal algorithm appears highly dataset-dependent [5].

Deep Neural Networks, especially specialized architectures like MSformer-ADMET, have shown breakthrough performance on comprehensive ADMET benchmarks, outperforming conventional approaches across multiple endpoints [20]. This superior capability comes from their ability to learn directly from molecular structure without relying on pre-engineered features, though this advantage typically materializes only with sufficient training data and computational investment.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Benchmarking Frameworks

Robust algorithm evaluation in ADMET prediction requires carefully designed experimental protocols. Recent benchmarking studies have implemented rigorous methodologies to ensure fair comparisons:

Table 2: Key components of experimental protocols for algorithm evaluation in ADMET prediction

Protocol Component	Implementation Details	Purpose	Example Source
Data Cleaning	Standardization of SMILES, removal of duplicates and salts, handling of missing values	Ensure data quality and consistency	[5]
Feature Representation	RDKit descriptors, Morgan fingerprints, learned representations	Compare impact of different molecular encodings	[5] [24]
Data Splitting	Scaffold split method (via DeepChem)	Assess generalization to novel chemical structures	[5]
Model Validation	Cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing	Ensure statistical significance of performance differences	[5]
External Validation	Training on one data source, testing on another	Evaluate practical applicability	[5]

The Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) has emerged as a valuable resource for standardized ADMET benchmarking, providing curated datasets and evaluation protocols that facilitate direct algorithm comparisons [5] [20]. Studies leveraging TDC typically employ scaffold splitting, which groups molecules based on their Bemis-Murcko scaffolds and assigns entire scaffolds to training or test sets. This approach more realistically simulates real-world performance when predicting properties for novel chemical scaffolds not represented in the training data [5].

Feature Selection and Representation

A critical methodological consideration in ligand-based ADMET prediction is the selection and engineering of molecular representations. Studies consistently show that feature representation significantly impacts model performance, sometimes more than the choice of algorithm itself [5]. Common approaches include:

• Traditional descriptors and fingerprints: RDKit molecular descriptors, Morgan fingerprints, and other hand-crafted features that encode specific molecular properties and substructures.
• Deep-learned representations: Features automatically extracted by neural networks from raw molecular representations like SMILES strings or molecular graphs.
• Hybrid approaches: Concatenation of multiple representation types to capture complementary information about molecular structure and properties.

Recent research indicates that structured approaches to feature selection—such as variance thresholding, correlation filters, and algorithms like Boruta—can significantly improve model performance and interpretability while reducing overfitting [24]. The Boruta algorithm, which uses a Random Forest classifier to identify statistically important features by comparing original features to shadow features, has proven particularly effective for high-dimensional molecular descriptor sets [24].

Figure 1: Comprehensive workflow for algorithm validation in ADMET prediction, incorporating data cleaning, feature engineering, model training, and rigorous validation stages.

Successful implementation of machine learning algorithms for ADMET prediction requires both computational tools and curated data resources. The following table details essential components of the research toolkit:

Table 3: Essential research reagents and computational tools for ADMET prediction research

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Example Applications
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC)	Data Benchmark	Curated ADMET datasets with standardized splits	Algorithm benchmarking across multiple endpoints [5] [20]
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Molecular descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation, SMILES processing	Feature engineering for traditional ML algorithms [5] [24]
LightGBM/XGBoost	Gradient Boosting Implementation	Efficient gradient boosting with optimized training algorithms	High-performance prediction on structured molecular data [5] [24]
Chemprop	Deep Learning Library	Message Passing Neural Networks for molecular property prediction	Graph-based molecular representation learning [5]
MSformer-ADMET	Specialized DL Framework	Transformer-based architecture for ADMET prediction	State-of-the-art performance on multiple ADMET endpoints [20]
PaDELPy	Descriptor Calculation Tool	Automated computation of molecular descriptors and fingerprints	Feature generation for QSAR modeling [24]
Boruta	Feature Selection Algorithm	Random Forest-based feature importance identification	Dimensionality reduction for high-dimensional descriptor sets [24]

Beyond these computational tools, effective ADMET modeling requires careful data curation and preprocessing. Public ADMET datasets often contain inconsistencies ranging from duplicate measurements with varying values to inconsistent binary labels across training and test sets [5]. Implementing standardized data cleaning protocols—including SMILES standardization, salt removal, tautomer adjustment, and deduplication—is essential for building reliable predictive models [5].

Practical Guidelines for Algorithm Selection

Decision Framework

Based on the comparative analysis of algorithmic performance, computational requirements, and implementation complexity, the following decision framework provides practical guidance for algorithm selection in ligand-based ADMET prediction:

Figure 2: Decision framework for selecting machine learning algorithms in ADMET prediction based on dataset size and interpretability requirements.

Implementation Considerations

Beyond the core decision framework, several practical considerations should guide algorithm selection and implementation:

• Computational Resources: Random Forests can be trained in parallel, offering faster training on multi-core systems. Gradient Boosting requires sequential training but often achieves better performance with careful tuning. Deep Neural Networks typically demand significant computational resources, especially for hyperparameter optimization [21] [22].

• Hyperparameter Sensitivity: Gradient Boosting generally requires more extensive hyperparameter tuning than Random Forests to prevent overfitting and achieve optimal performance. Deep Neural Networks involve numerous hyperparameters related to architecture design, optimization, and regularization [21].

• Data Quality Tolerance: Random Forests typically demonstrate greater robustness to noisy data and outliers commonly found in experimental ADMET measurements. Gradient Boosting may overfit to noise without proper regularization, while Deep Neural Networks require large volumes of clean data to achieve their full potential [21] [23].

• Feature Representation Flexibility: Deep Neural Networks can learn directly from raw molecular representations (SMILES, graphs), potentially reducing reliance on manual feature engineering. Tree-based methods typically require precomputed molecular descriptors or fingerprints but often achieve excellent performance with these representations [25] [20].

The selection between Random Forests, Gradient Boosting Machines, and Deep Neural Networks for ligand-based ADMET prediction involves nuanced trade-offs across multiple dimensions of performance, efficiency, and practicality. Evidence from recent benchmarking studies indicates that while Gradient Boosting implementations frequently achieve superior predictive accuracy on structured molecular data, Random Forests offer advantages in stability, interpretability, and performance on smaller datasets. Deep Neural Networks, particularly specialized architectures like MSformer-ADMET, represent the cutting edge for large-scale comprehensive ADMET profiling but demand substantial computational resources and technical expertise.

The optimal algorithm choice ultimately depends on specific research constraints and objectives, including dataset size and quality, interpretability requirements, computational resources, and performance priorities. Rather than seeking a universally superior algorithm, researchers should consider these factors within their specific context, potentially employing the structured decision framework presented herein. As the field advances, hybrid approaches that leverage the complementary strengths of multiple algorithm families may offer the most promising path forward for robust, interpretable, and highly accurate ADMET prediction in drug discovery pipelines.

In modern drug discovery, the failure of drug candidates due to unfavorable Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties remains a significant challenge, contributing substantially to late-stage attrition [1]. Accurately predicting these properties through computational methods has therefore become a critical research focus, with molecular representation serving as the foundational element of any predictive model. For decades, molecular fingerprints—handcrafted, fixed representations based on predefined structural patterns—have been the standard tool for ligand-based ADMET prediction [27]. However, the emergence of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) presents a paradigm shift, offering data-driven representations that learn directly from molecular graph structures. This review provides a comprehensive comparison of these competing approaches for molecular representation, evaluating their performance, interpretability, and practical utility within the context of validating ligand-based ADMET predictions.

Molecular Representation Fundamentals: From Handcrafted Features to Learned Embeddings

Traditional Molecular Fingerprints

Traditional molecular fingerprints are expert-designed representations that encode molecular structures into fixed-length bit vectors. They operate on predefined rules to capture specific structural patterns or fragments:

• Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP): Circular fingerprints that capture atomic environments at different radii, widely used for similarity searching and structure-activity modeling [28] [29].
• PubChem Fingerprints: Encode molecular structures based on predefined chemical substructures derived from the PubChem database [30].
• MACCS Keys: A set of 166 structural keys representing specific atom environments or functional groups [28].
• RDKit Fingerprints: Structural fingerprints implemented within the RDKit cheminformatics package, using a dictionary of known substructures [30].

These representations are inherently interpretable and computationally efficient, making them suitable for use with traditional machine learning models like Random Forest and XGBoost [27]. However, they face limitations in dealing with the high dimensionality and heterogeneity of material data, potentially leading to limited generalization capabilities and insufficient information representation [28].

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)

GNNs constitute a deep learning approach specifically designed for graph-structured data, making them naturally suited for molecular representation where atoms correspond to nodes and bonds to edges [28]. Unlike fixed fingerprints, GNNs learn task-specific representations through multiple layers of message passing, where each atom's representation is iteratively updated by aggregating information from its neighboring atoms [29]. This approach automatically captures complex structure-property relationships without relying on pre-defined feature engineering.

Key GNN architectures for molecular representation include:

• Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs): Apply convolutional operations to graph data by aggregating neighbor information using normalized sums [29].
• Graph Attention Networks (GATs): Incorporate attention mechanisms to weigh the importance of different neighboring atoms during message passing [29].
• Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs): A general framework that unifies various GNN approaches through message functions and update functions [29].
• Attentive FP: Utilizes a graph attention mechanism to learn context-dependent representations for both atoms and molecules [29].
• Kolmogorov-Arnold GNNs (KA-GNNs): Recently proposed architectures that integrate Kolmogorov-Arnold networks into GNN components, showing enhanced expressivity and interpretability [31].

Performance Comparison: Experimental Evidence Across Multiple Benchmarks

Quantitative Performance Metrics Across Diverse Property Endpoints

Table 1: Comparative Performance of GNNs vs. Fingerprint-Based Models on Molecular Property Prediction

Dataset Category	Top-Performing Approach	Key Metrics	Notable Models
ADMET Parameters	Mixed Performance	GNNs with multitask learning achieved highest performance for 7/10 ADME parameters [32]	GNN-MT+FT (Multitask Fine-Tuning) [32]
Taste Prediction	GNNs & Hybrids	GNNs outperformed other approaches; fingerprints + GNN consensus model was top performer [30]	Molecular fingerprints + GNN consensus model [30]
Molecular Property Benchmarks	Descriptor-Based Models	Descriptor-based models generally outperformed graph-based models in prediction accuracy and computational efficiency [29]	SVM, XGBoost, Random Forest [29]
Drug Discovery Applications	GNN Foundation Models	MolGPS (GNN foundation model) established SOTA on 26/38 downstream tasks [33]	MolGPS, Graph Transformers [33]

Critical Analysis of Performance Trends

The experimental evidence reveals a nuanced performance landscape. While some studies indicate that traditional descriptor-based models can match or even exceed GNN performance on certain benchmarks [29], more recent and specialized applications demonstrate clear advantages for GNN approaches:

• Multitask Learning Advantage: GNNs demonstrate particular strength in multitask settings, where knowledge sharing across related tasks improves generalization, especially for ADMET parameters with limited data [32]. This addresses a key challenge in drug discovery where experimental data for certain endpoints is scarce.
• Hybrid Approach Superiority: Consensus models that combine GNNs with molecular fingerprints often achieve state-of-the-art performance, suggesting these representations capture complementary information [34] [30]. The Fingerprint-Enhanced Hierarchical GNN (FH-GNN), which integrates hierarchical molecular graphs with fingerprint features, has demonstrated superior performance on multiple benchmarks [34].
• Foundation Model Scaling: Recent research on GNN scaling laws demonstrates that increasing model size, dataset size, and label diversity consistently improves performance, enabling foundation models like MolGPS to achieve new state-of-the-art results across numerous tasks [33].

Methodological Comparison: Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Traditional Fingerprint-Based Workflow

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Fingerprint generation, molecular descriptors, cheminformatics	Fingerprint calculation, structural manipulation [29] [8]
DruMAP	ADME Database	Source of experimental ADME values and compound structures	Training data for predictive models [32]
PharmaBench	Benchmark Dataset	Comprehensive ADMET dataset with standardized experimental conditions	Model evaluation and benchmarking [8]
XGBoost/Random Forest	Machine Learning Algorithm	Predictive modeling using fingerprint features	Baseline performance comparison [29] [27]
SHAP	Interpretation Framework	Model interpretation and feature importance analysis	Explaining fingerprint-based model predictions [29]

The standard workflow for fingerprint-based approaches involves:

• Molecular Featurization: Generating fingerprint vectors (e.g., ECFP, PubChem fingerprints) or molecular descriptors using tools like RDKit [29].
• Model Training: Applying traditional machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, XGBoost, SVM) to the fingerprint features.
• Interpretation: Using methods like SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) to identify which structural features contribute most to predictions [29].

Graph Neural Network Workflow

GNN methodologies employ significantly different experimental protocols:

• Graph Representation: Molecules are represented as graphs with node features (atom type, hybridization, etc.) and edge features (bond type, conjugation, etc.) [29].
• Architecture Selection: Choosing appropriate GNN architectures (GCN, GAT, MPNN, Attentive FP) based on the task requirements.
• Training Strategy: Often employing pretraining on large molecular datasets followed by fine-tuning on specific ADMET endpoints [32] [33].
• Interpretation: Using GNN-specific interpretation techniques such as integrated gradients to highlight atoms and substructures important for predictions [32].

Diagram 1: Comparative workflow for fingerprint-based and GNN-based molecular property prediction. The hybrid approach leverages strengths from both methodologies.

Functional Advantages and Limitations in ADMET Context

Representation Capabilities

• Expressiveness: GNNs demonstrate superior expressiveness by automatically capturing information about atoms, chemical bonds, multi-order adjacencies, and topologies without manual feature engineering [28]. Traditional fingerprints, while capturing explicit structural patterns, may miss complex, non-obvious relationships.
• Adaptability: GNN representations can be dynamically adjusted based on downstream tasks through fine-tuning, whereas fingerprint-based representations remain static once generated [28]. This is particularly valuable for multi-task ADMET prediction where shared learning across endpoints improves efficiency.
• Smooth Latent Spaces: GNNs create continuous, high-dimensional embedding spaces where molecular similarity can be measured using mathematical operations like Euclidean distance or cosine similarity [27]. This enables efficient similarity searching and molecular optimization in continuous spaces, a significant advantage over discrete fingerprint representations.

Practical Implementation Considerations

• Computational Efficiency: Fingerprint-based models with traditional ML algorithms (XGBoost, Random Forest) generally offer superior computational efficiency, requiring only seconds to train on large datasets [29]. GNNs typically demand more computational resources and training time, though this gap may narrow with specialized architectures and hardware optimization.
• Data Requirements: GNNs generally benefit from larger datasets to reach their full potential and may underperform on small datasets where traditional fingerprints excel [29] [27]. However, techniques like multitask learning [32] and foundation model pretraining [33] can mitigate data scarcity issues.
• Interpretability: Fingerprint-based models traditionally hold an advantage in interpretability, with clear mapping between activated bits and chemical substructures [29]. However, recent GNN interpretation methods like integrated gradients [32] and inherently interpretable architectures like KA-GNNs [31] are rapidly closing this gap by highlighting chemically meaningful substructures.

Future Directions and Research Opportunities

The field of molecular representation continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising research directions emerging:

• Geometric and 3D-Aware GNNs: Traditional GNNs operating on 2D molecular graphs are being supplemented by architectures that incorporate 3D molecular geometry and conformational information, better capturing stereochemistry and molecular shape properties critical for binding and toxicity [27].
• Foundation Models for Molecules: Following the success in natural language processing, large-scale pretrained GNN models like MolGPS [33] demonstrate remarkable transfer learning capabilities across diverse molecular tasks, potentially reducing the data requirements for specific ADMET endpoints.
• Multimodal Integration: Combining molecular graph information with other data modalities such as bioassay results, protein structures, and genomic data represents a frontier for improving predictive accuracy and clinical relevance [1].
• Algorithmic Advancements: Novel architectures like KA-GNNs that integrate Kolmogorov-Arnold networks with graph learning show promise for enhancing both predictive performance and interpretability [31].

The comparison between GNNs and traditional fingerprints for molecular representation reveals a complex landscape where neither approach universally dominates. For researchers validating ligand-based ADMET predictions, the strategic selection depends on specific project constraints and objectives:

• Fingerprint-based approaches remain compelling for projects with limited data, requiring rapid prototyping, or prioritizing model interpretability using established cheminformatics tools.
• GNN approaches offer advantages for complex multitask prediction, when leveraging large-scale molecular datasets, or when capturing subtle 3D structural relationships is essential for accurate ADMET forecasting.
• Hybrid methodologies that combine the strengths of both representations increasingly deliver state-of-the-art performance, suggesting that the future of molecular representation lies not in choosing between these paradigms but in effectively integrating them.

As GNN methodologies continue to mature and computational resources expand, the trend toward learned, data-driven representations appears inevitable. However, traditional fingerprints will likely maintain relevance as interpretable, computationally efficient alternatives, particularly in resource-constrained environments or for well-established structure-activity relationships. For the ADMET researcher, maintaining expertise in both paradigms represents the most strategic approach to navigating the evolving landscape of molecular property prediction.

In modern drug discovery, the in silico prediction of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties has become indispensable for reducing late-stage attrition rates. Multitask Learning (MTL) frameworks represent a transformative approach that leverages correlated ADMET endpoints to enhance prediction accuracy and model generalizability. Unlike Single-Task Learning (STL), which predicts individual properties in isolation, MTL simultaneously learns multiple related tasks by sharing representations across domains, allowing models to capture underlying biological relationships between different pharmacokinetic and toxicity endpoints [35] [1]. This paradigm is particularly valuable in drug discovery, where experimental data for individual endpoints may be scarce or expensive to obtain, but correlated properties can provide complementary information that improves overall predictive performance.

The fundamental premise of MTL for ADMET prediction rests on the biological interdependence of pharmacokinetic processes. For instance, metabolic stability (Metabolism) often correlates with pharmacokinetic half-life (Excretion), while membrane permeability (Absorption) relates to volume of distribution (Distribution) [1] [36]. By explicitly modeling these relationships, MTL frameworks can unlock synergistic learning effects where improvements in one task propagate to others, ultimately yielding more robust and clinically-relevant predictions than what could be achieved through isolated STL models [35] [37]. This review systematically compares state-of-the-art MTL frameworks, their experimental performance, implementation methodologies, and practical applications in validating ligand-based ADMET predictions.

Key Multitask Learning Frameworks and Architectural Approaches

Graph Neural Network-Based Frameworks

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as particularly powerful backbones for MTL in ADMET prediction due to their native ability to operate on molecular graph representations. The MTGL-ADMET framework implements a "one primary, multiple auxiliaries" paradigm that combines status theory with maximum flow algorithms for adaptive auxiliary task selection [35]. This approach automatically identifies which ADMET tasks provide synergistic learning signals versus those that might cause negative interference, thereby optimizing the multitask learning process. The model demonstrates exceptional performance in identifying key molecular substructures related to specific ADMET tasks, providing both predictive power and interpretability [35].

KERMT (Kinetic GROVER Multi-Task) represents an enhanced version of the GROVER pretrained GNN model, specifically optimized for distributed training and industrial-scale applications [37]. Implemented using PyTorch Distributed Data Parallel (DDP), KERMT incorporates accelerated fine-tuning and inference capabilities through the cuik-molmaker package, enabling efficient processing of large compound libraries. Contrary to conventional wisdom that MTL provides the greatest benefits for small datasets, KERMT has demonstrated particularly strong performance improvements in large-data scenarios, making it exceptionally valuable for pharmaceutical companies with extensive historical screening data [37].

The Chemprop-RDKit hybrid architecture serves as a robust baseline framework that combines directed message passing neural networks (D-MPNN) with classical molecular descriptors [5] [38]. This approach leverages both learned graph representations and engineered features, providing complementary molecular information that enhances model expressiveness. The framework's relative architectural simplicity combined with strong empirical performance has made it a popular choice for both academic research and industrial applications [5].

Quantum-Enhanced and Specialized Frameworks

QW-MTL (Quantum-enhanced and task-Weighted Multi-Task Learning) introduces quantum chemical descriptors to enrich molecular representations with electronic structure information [38]. These physically-grounded 3D features capture molecular spatial conformation and electronic properties that are essential for ADMET outcomes but absent in conventional 2D representations. The framework incorporates a novel exponential task weighting mechanism that combines dataset-scale priors with learnable parameters for dynamic loss balancing across tasks with heterogeneous data volumes and learning difficulties [38].

Federated Learning frameworks address the critical challenge of data diversity while maintaining privacy across organizations [2]. By enabling model training across distributed proprietary datasets without centralizing sensitive data, federated learning systematically extends a model's effective domain coverage. The Apheris Federated ADMET Network exemplifies this approach, demonstrating that federated models consistently outperform local baselines, with performance improvements scaling with the number and diversity of participants [2]. This approach is particularly valuable for ADMET prediction, where no single organization possesses comprehensive coverage of chemical space.

Table 1: Comparison of Key Multitask Learning Frameworks for ADMET Prediction

Framework	Core Architecture	Key Innovation	Data Requirements	Interpretability Features
MTGL-ADMET [35]	Graph Neural Network	Adaptive auxiliary task selection	Medium to large datasets	Identifies key molecular substructures
KERMT [37]	Pretrained Graph Transformer	Distributed training acceleration	Large-scale datasets	Attention mechanisms for molecular regions
QW-MTL [38]	D-MPNN + Quantum Descriptors	Quantum-informed representations & task weighting	Small to medium datasets	Feature importance analysis
Chemprop-RDKit [5] [38]	D-MPNN + RDKit descriptors	Hybrid learned/engineered features	Flexible across data sizes	SHAP analysis for descriptors
Federated MTL [2]	Various base architectures	Privacy-preserving multi-organization training	Distributed datasets across organizations	Varies by base model

Experimental Performance Comparison

Benchmarking Results Across ADMET Endpoints

Rigorous benchmarking studies provide compelling evidence for the performance advantages of MTL frameworks over traditional single-task approaches. The MTGL-ADMET framework has demonstrated superior performance compared to both STL and existing MTL methods across multiple ADMET endpoints, particularly in identifying crucial molecular substructures that influence specific properties [35]. This interpretability component is invaluable for medicinal chemists seeking to optimize lead compounds.

The KERMT framework shows remarkable performance on temporal splits of internal pharmaceutical data, which represent more realistic validation scenarios that simulate real-world drug discovery progression [37]. When evaluated on an internal Merck dataset containing 30 ADMET endpoints and over 800,000 compounds, KERMT achieved significantly higher R² values compared to non-pretrained GNN models and other pretrained approaches across key parameters including apparent permeability (Papp), EPSA, human plasma protein binding (Fu,p), P-glycoprotein activity (Pgp), and mean residence time (MRT) [37].

In perhaps the most comprehensive standardized evaluation, the QW-MTL framework was systematically assessed across all 13 ADMET classification tasks from the Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) benchmark using official leaderboard splits [38]. The results demonstrated statistically significant outperformance over strong single-task baselines on 12 out of 13 tasks, establishing a new state-of-the-art for multi-task ADMET prediction on this benchmark. The incorporation of quantum chemical descriptors provided particular benefits for predicting endpoints with strong electronic determinants, such as solubility and permeability [38].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of MTL Frameworks on Standardized Benchmarks

Framework	Benchmark Dataset	Key Performance Metrics	Improvement Over STL Baselines
MTGL-ADMET [35]	Multiple public ADMET datasets	Outperformed STL and existing MTL methods	Significant improvements in AUC and RMSE
KERMT [37]	Internal Merck data (30 endpoints, 800k+ compounds)	R² values: Papp (0.72), EPSA (0.69), Fu,p (0.75)	15-40% error reduction across endpoints
QW-MTL [38]	TDC (13 classification tasks)	AUC improvements across 12/13 tasks	5-15% relative improvement in AUC
Federated MTL [2]	Multi-company federated benchmark	40-60% error reduction for clearance, solubility, permeability	Systematic outperformance vs. isolated training

Impact of Data Regime and Task Relatedness

The performance advantages of MTL frameworks are not uniform across all data regimes and task combinations. Counterintuitively, KERMT demonstrates that performance improvements from MTL fine-tuning are most significant at larger data sizes rather than being limited to low-data scenarios [37]. This finding challenges the conventional wisdom that MTL primarily benefits small datasets and suggests that with sufficient model capacity, larger datasets enable more effective learning of shared representations across tasks.

The relatedness between tasks emerges as a critical factor influencing MTL efficacy. Studies quantifying task relatedness using metrics such as label agreement among structurally similar compounds have found that performance gains are maximized when tasks are chemically or functionally coupled [36]. Integrating numerous weakly related endpoints can saturate or even degrade model performance due to negative transfer, where incompatible tasks provide conflicting learning signals [36]. The MTGL-ADMET framework's adaptive task selection directly addresses this challenge by identifying optimal auxiliary tasks for each primary prediction target [35].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Data Splitting Strategies and Validation Schemes

Proper experimental design is crucial for rigorous evaluation of MTL frameworks, with data splitting strategy significantly influencing performance assessment. Temporal splitting partitions compounds based on experimental chronology, simulating real-world prospective prediction where models forecast properties for newly designed compounds [36] [37]. This approach yields more realistic, less optimistic generalization estimates than random splits, as it accounts for the evolving nature of chemical space in drug discovery programs [37].

Scaffold-based splitting groups compounds by their Bemis-Murcko scaffolds, ensuring that training and test sets contain distinct core structures [5] [36]. This strategy provides a rigorous assessment of model generalization to novel chemotypes, which is essential for practical drug discovery where researchers frequently explore new scaffold classes [5]. Cluster-based splitting using dimensionality-reduced molecular fingerprints offers a complementary approach that maximizes structural diversity between partitions [36].

For multitask evaluation specifically, aligned splits maintain consistent train/validation/test partitions across all endpoints to prevent cross-task leakage and enable accurate measurement of inductive transfer [36]. The publication of standardized multitask ADMET data splits, such as those released with KERMT, facilitates more reproducible benchmarking across studies [37].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for multitask ADMET evaluation, highlighting critical data splitting strategies.

Task Weighting and Loss Balancing Techniques

A fundamental challenge in MTL is balancing learning across tasks with heterogeneous data volumes, difficulties, and label distributions. Simple loss averaging often fails as it allows high-volume tasks to dominate training. Task-weighted loss functions address this by scaling each endpoint's loss inversely with training set size, preventing data-rich tasks from overwhelming the learning signal [36].

The QW-MTL framework introduces an innovative exponential sample-aware weighting scheme where each task's contribution is scaled via ( wt = rt^{\text{softplus}(\log\betat)} ), where ( rt = nt/\sumi ni ) represents the relative data volume and ( \betat ) is a learnable parameter [38]. This approach dynamically balances task influences during training, giving the model flexibility to prioritize tasks based on both data scale and learning difficulty.

Gradient balancing techniques such as those implemented in the AIM framework mediate destructive gradient interference between tasks by optimizing inter-task relationships with a differentiable augmented objective [36]. These approaches yield interpretability into task compatibility, potentially guiding optimal task grouping strategies for maximum synergistic learning [36].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful implementation of MTL frameworks for ADMET prediction requires access to specialized computational tools, datasets, and infrastructure. The following table summarizes key resources that constitute the essential "research toolkit" for this domain.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for MTL in ADMET Prediction

Resource Category	Specific Tools & Databases	Function and Application	Access Considerations
Benchmark Datasets [5] [36]	TDC (Therapeutics Data Commons), Merck Multitask ADMET, Biogen Public ADME	Standardized benchmarks for model training and evaluation	Public access (TDC, Biogen) vs. proprietary (Merck)
Molecular Representations [5] [38]	RDKit descriptors, Morgan fingerprints, Quantum chemical descriptors, Graph representations	Feature engineering for machine learning models	Open-source (RDKit) vs. commercial (quantum chemistry software)
ML Frameworks [35] [37] [38]	Chemprop, KERMT, QW-MTL, MTGL-ADMET	Implementation of multitask learning architectures	Varies from open-source to proprietary implementations
Data Processing Tools [5]	DeepChem, MOE, DataWarrior, Custom standardization pipelines	Data cleaning, splitting, and preprocessing	Mix of open-source and commercial options
Computational Infrastructure [2] [37]	GPU clusters, Federated learning networks, Distributed training frameworks	Enable training of large-scale models on extensive datasets	Significant hardware investment often required

Implementation Considerations and Best Practices

Data Quality and Preprocessing

Robust MTL implementation begins with rigorous data quality control. Molecular standardization is essential to address inconsistencies in SMILES representations, salt forms, and tautomeric states that can introduce noise into learning [5]. Best practices include removing inorganic salts and organometallic compounds, extracting parent organic compounds from salt forms, adjusting tautomers to consistent representations, canonicalizing SMILES strings, and careful handling of duplicates with inconsistent measurements [5].

Feature selection approaches significantly impact model performance. Filter methods efficiently eliminate correlated and redundant features, wrapper methods iteratively train algorithms with feature subsets to identify optimal combinations, and embedded methods integrate feature selection directly into the learning algorithm [39]. Studies demonstrate that models trained on non-redundant, informative features can achieve >80% accuracy, outperforming those using all available descriptors [39].

Mitigating Negative Transfer and Optimization Challenges

Negative transfer occurs when unrelated tasks interfere with each other during training, potentially degrading performance below single-task baselines. Adaptive task selection approaches, such as that implemented in MTGL-ADMET, identify synergistic task combinations while avoiding detrimental partnerships [35]. Similarly, gradient balancing techniques detect and mediate conflicting optimization directions across tasks [36].

The imbalanced nature of ADMET datasets presents another significant challenge, as individual endpoints vary substantially in data volume, measurement type (classification vs. regression), and biological complexity. Dynamic weighting strategies that adjust task importance during training are essential for preventing model dominance by high-volume or numerically easier tasks [36] [38].

Diagram 2: Core architecture of multitask learning frameworks highlighting critical components for handling task imbalances.

The field of MTL for ADMET prediction continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising research trajectories emerging. Hybrid AI-quantum frameworks represent an exciting frontier, combining quantum-inspired algorithms with classical deep learning to capture molecular interactions at unprecedented levels of physical accuracy [19] [38]. Automated task grouping using interpretable policy matrices may enable intelligent clustering of synergistic endpoints, optimizing the composition of multitask learning systems [36].

Federated learning infrastructures are poised to address the fundamental data diversity challenge in ADMET prediction by enabling collaborative model development across multiple pharmaceutical organizations while preserving data privacy and intellectual property [2]. As these technologies mature, they promise to systematically expand the chemical space coverage of predictive models, ultimately enhancing their generalization to novel compound classes [2].

In conclusion, MTL frameworks have demonstrated substantial potential to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of ADMET prediction compared to traditional single-task approaches. The performance advantages are most pronounced when tasks are biologically related, data splitting strategies reflect real-world application scenarios, and appropriate weighting mechanisms balance learning across heterogeneous endpoints. As standardization of benchmarks and evaluation protocols improves, alongside advances in model architectures and training techniques, MTL is positioned to play an increasingly central role in accelerating drug discovery and reducing late-stage attrition due to unfavorable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles.

Accurate prediction of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties represents a fundamental challenge in drug discovery, with approximately 40–45% of clinical attrition attributed to these liabilities [2] [40]. Despite advances in graph-based deep learning and foundation models, even the most sophisticated approaches remain constrained by their training data. Experimental assays are heterogeneous and often low-throughput, while available datasets capture only limited sections of the relevant chemical and assay space [2]. Consequently, model performance typically degrades significantly when predictions are made for novel molecular scaffolds or compounds outside the distribution of training data [2] [40].

The critical limitation is data diversity rather than algorithmic sophistication. As noted by the Polaris ADMET Challenge, multi-task architectures trained on broader and better-curated data consistently outperform single-task or non-ADMET pre-trained models, achieving 40–60% reductions in prediction error across key endpoints including human and mouse liver microsomal clearance, solubility, and permeability [2]. This highlights that data diversity and representativeness, rather than model architecture alone, are the dominant factors driving predictive accuracy and generalization. Federated learning has emerged as a transformative approach to overcoming these data limitations while addressing the paramount pharmaceutical industry concerns of intellectual property protection and data privacy.

Federated Learning Fundamentals: Technical Architecture and Workflow

Federated learning enables machine learning across distributed datasets without centralizing sensitive information [41]. In the context of multi-pharmaceutical collaboration, this approach allows model training across proprietary datasets from multiple organizations while keeping all data within its original secure environment. The process operates on a fundamentally different principle than traditional centralized machine learning, as illustrated below:

Figure 1: Federated learning workflow for cross-pharma collaboration. Only model updates—not raw data—are shared, preserving data privacy and intellectual property.

Two primary federation approaches exist for QSAR modeling: cross-compound federation (where different organizations contribute data for the same assays but different compounds) and cross-endpoint federation (where organizations contribute data for different assays or tasks) [41]. The cross-endpoint approach, implemented in the landmark MELLODDY project, offers particular advantages for ADMET prediction as it doesn't require disclosure or matching of assay endpoints between partners, thus preserving additional layers of proprietary information [41].

The MELLODDY project implemented a specialized technical architecture extending multitask learning across partners. Each participating pharmaceutical company maintained control over its proprietary data while contributing to a shared model through encrypted model updates. A key innovation was the use of shuffled molecular fingerprints (ECFP6 folded to 32k bits) with a shuffle key secret to the platform operator, providing an additional layer of security by ensuring that identical structures received identical representations without explicitly mapping structures up front [41].

Performance Comparison: Federated vs. Traditional Approaches

Quantitative benchmarking from large-scale cross-pharma initiatives demonstrates clear advantages for federated learning approaches across multiple ADMET prediction tasks. The table below summarizes key performance metrics from published studies:

Table 1: Quantitative performance improvements from federated learning implementations in ADMET prediction

Study/Initiative	Scale	Key Performance Improvements	Primary Benefitting Endpoints
MELLODDY Project [41]	10 pharma companies2.6B+ data points21M+ compounds40k+ assays	Systematic outperformance of local baselinesBenefits scaled with participant number/diversityExtended applicability domain	Pharmacokinetics & safety panels showed markedly higher improvements
Apheris Federated ADMET Network [2]	Multiple pharma partners	40-60% error reduction on key endpoints (vs single-task models)Broader applicability domainIncreased robustness on unseen scaffolds	Human & mouse liver microsomal clearance, solubility (KSOL), permeability (MDR1-MDCKII)
Heyndrickx et al., 2023 [2] [41]	Cross-pharma analysis	Predictive performance increases in labeled spaceSaturating returns with data volume increases	Tasks with overlapping signals (pharmacokinetics, safety)

Federation fundamentally alters the geometry of chemical space a model can learn from, improving coverage and reducing discontinuities in the learned representation [2]. This translates to practical advantages for drug discovery teams, particularly when predicting properties for novel molecular scaffolds that would traditionally fall outside a single organization's applicability domain.

The performance benefits demonstrate consistent patterns across studies: federated models systematically outperform local baselines, with performance improvements scaling with the number and diversity of participants [2]. These benefits persist across heterogeneous data, with all contributors receiving superior models even when assay protocols, compound libraries, or endpoint coverage differ substantially between organizations [2].

Table 2: Advantages of federation for different ADMET prediction scenarios

Prediction Scenario	Traditional Single-Organization Approach	Federated Learning Approach	Key Advantages
Novel scaffold prediction	Performance degradation due to limited chemical space coverage	Maintained performance through expanded applicability domain	Reduced blind spots in chemical space [2] [40]
Low-data endpoints	Limited model accuracy due to sparse training data	Enhanced performance through related signals from other organizations	Information transfer across assays and chemical spaces [41]
Complex property prediction	Isolated modeling on limited data diversity	Multi-task learning across diverse data sources	Markedly higher gains for PK/safety endpoints with overlapping signals [2]

The MELLODDY Case Study: Experimental Protocol and Methodology

The MELLODDY (Machine Learning Ledger Orchestration for Drug Discovery) project represents the most comprehensive implementation of federated learning for drug discovery to date, involving ten pharmaceutical companies (Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Janssen, Merck KGaA, Novartis, and Servier) [41]. The project established rigorous experimental protocols that can serve as a template for future federated initiatives.

Data Preparation and Standardization

Each partner independently performed data preparation steps according to a common protocol, including compound standardization and featurization to ECFP6 chemical fingerprints folded to 32k bits using the MELLODDY-TUNER package [41]. This ensured identical structures received identical representations across all partners without exchanging descriptors or assay data. To enhance security, fingerprints were shuffled prior to training using a platform-operator-held key, requiring the same shuffling during inference with trained models.

The dataset encompassed pharmacological and toxicological assay data categorized into three types: on-target activity ("Other"), off-target activity ("Panel"), and ADME properties ("ADME") which included physical chemistry assays given their importance to ADME properties [41]. The project incorporated both alive assays (meeting contemporary procedural requirements) and historical assays, with data from public sources included as well [41].

Modeling Approach and Task Formulation

The MELLODDY project implemented a cross-endpoint federation approach, conceptually extending multitask learning across multiple parties while protecting data confidentiality [41]. The modeling supported two main modalities:

• Regression: Predicting continuous values (assay measurements) directly
• Binary classification: Predicting active/inactive labels relative to a threshold on assay measurements

A hybrid approach was also implemented where both classification and regression tasks were trained simultaneously with a single network, with specialized activation functions for each output type (ReLU and softmax for classification, Tanh for regression) [41]. The experimental workflow for model development and evaluation followed a structured process:

Figure 2: MELLODDY experimental protocol for federated model development and evaluation.

Data Volume and Quality Thresholds

The project established minimum data volume requirements for task inclusion, with specific quotas for different assay types [41]. For standard classification tasks, a minimum of 25 actives and 25 inactives per task was required for training, with an evaluation quorum of 10 actives and 10 inactives per fold. Regression tasks needed to pass classification training quorum requirements plus have a minimum standard deviation per task and evaluation quorum of 50 data points (with 25 uncensored) per task [41].

Notably, the approach allowed participation of data types not routinely considered for modeling, including low-volume assay data, censored data, multiple thresholds, and data from high-throughput screening (HTS) or imaging experiments [41]. This comprehensive inclusion strategy maximized the potential for cross-company learning synergies.

Implementation Framework: The Scientist's Toolkit

Implementing federated learning for ADMET prediction requires both technical infrastructure and methodological components. The table below details essential "research reagent solutions" for establishing a federated learning capability:

Table 3: Essential components for implementing federated learning in cross-pharma ADMET prediction

Component	Function	Example Implementations
Privacy-Preserving Platform	Orchestrates federated learning across organizations while protecting data confidentiality	Apheris Federated ADMET Network [2]; MELLODDY-style audited platform [41]
Data Standardization Tools	Ensure consistent compound representation across organizations	MELLODDY-TUNER for compound standardization and featurization [41]; kMoL open-source library [40]
Security Protocols	Protect sensitive data and intellectual property during model training	Encrypted model update transmission; shuffled molecular fingerprints [41]
Multi-Task Learning Architecture	Enables information sharing across tasks and organizations	Neural networks with shared representation layers and task-specific heads [41] [42]
Model Evaluation Framework	Provides rigorous assessment of model performance	Scaffold-based cross-validation; multiple seed and fold evaluation; statistical testing [2]

Successful implementation also requires establishing trust frameworks between participating organizations, including clear data governance policies and usage rights agreements. The MELLODDY project addressed usage rights symmetry concerns by ensuring that parties contributing data for specific tasks became exclusively entitled to the model components specific to those tasks, encouraging maximal commitment of confidential datasets [41].

Federated learning represents a paradigm shift in how the pharmaceutical industry approaches ADMET prediction, transforming a traditionally competitive area into a collaborative opportunity while preserving intellectual property. The approach systematically extends models' effective applicability domain—an effect that cannot be achieved by expanding isolated internal datasets [2].

As model performance increasingly becomes limited by data diversity rather than algorithms, the ability to learn across distributed proprietary datasets without compromising data confidentiality will be central to advancing predictive pharmacology [2]. The established performance benefits—particularly for pharmacokinetics and safety endpoints—suggest that federation will play an increasingly important role in reducing late-stage attrition and accelerating the development of safer, more effective therapeutics.

Through systematic application of federated learning and rigorous methodological standards, the field moves closer to developing ADMET models with truly generalizable predictive power across the chemical and biological diversity encountered in modern drug discovery [2]. The technical frameworks established by initiatives like MELLODDY and the growing ecosystem of platforms and tools provide a foundation for expanded adoption across the pharmaceutical industry.

Troubleshooting and Optimization: Enhancing Model Robustness and Generalizability

Accurate prediction of a compound's Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties represents a fundamental challenge in modern drug discovery, with approximately 40–45% of clinical attrition still attributed to ADMET liabilities [2]. While public curated datasets and benchmarks for ADMET-associated properties have become increasingly available, enabling widespread exploration of machine learning algorithms, the selection and justification of compound representations has largely been overlooked in favor of model architecture comparisons [5]. Conventional approaches often default to simple concatenation of multiple feature representations without systematic reasoning, potentially introducing redundancy, noise, and reduced model generalizability.

This comparison guide examines structured approaches to feature selection for ligand-based ADMET predictions, moving beyond the simplistic practice of indiscriminate feature concatenation. We objectively analyze the performance impact of various feature selection methodologies within the context of validating ligand-based ADMET predictions, providing drug development professionals with evidence-based recommendations for optimizing their predictive models. Through rigorous benchmarking of techniques across multiple ADMET endpoints, we demonstrate how structured feature selection can significantly enhance model reliability, interpretability, and practical applicability in real-world drug discovery scenarios.

Methodological Framework: Beyond Basic Feature Concatenation

The Pitfalls of Simple Feature Concatenation

Simple feature concatenation combines multiple molecular representations—such as descriptors, fingerprints, and deep-learned embeddings—without systematic selection criteria. While this approach can capture complementary information, it often introduces several critical limitations that structured feature selection aims to overcome. The primary issues include increased dimensionality without proportional information gain, introduction of redundant or correlated features that violate model assumptions, reduced model interpretability due to feature overload, and heightened risk of overfitting, particularly on smaller ADMET datasets which are common in the domain [5].

Recent benchmarking initiatives have revealed that studies showcased on leaderboards like the Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) ADMET leaderboard often focus on comparing different ML models and architectures while the selection of compound representations is "either not justified, or analyzed with limited scope" [5]. Many approaches simply concatenate multiple compound representations at the onset for assessment of various models, despite the lack of scientific justification for these representation choices.

Structured Feature Selection Techniques

Structured feature selection employs systematic methodologies to identify optimal feature subsets based on statistical principles and empirical performance. For ADMET prediction tasks, three primary categories of feature selection techniques have demonstrated utility, each with distinct advantages and implementation considerations.

Filter Methods operate independently of any machine learning algorithm, selecting features based on statistical measures of their relationship with the target variable. These methods are computationally efficient and particularly valuable for high-dimensional ADMET datasets. Key techniques include correlation analysis, which evaluates linear relationships between features and targets; chi-square tests for categorical features; Fisher's score, which ranks features based on discriminatory power; and variance thresholding, which removes low-variance features unlikely to contribute meaningful information [43] [44]. For ADMET datasets, which often contain mixed data types (continuous, categorical, structural), filter methods provide a robust first pass for feature reduction.

Wrapper Methods evaluate feature subsets based on their performance with a specific machine learning algorithm. These approaches include forward feature selection, which iteratively adds features that most improve model performance; backward feature elimination, which starts with all features and iteratively removes the least important ones; and exhaustive search methods that evaluate all possible feature combinations [44]. While computationally intensive, wrapper methods typically yield feature sets optimized for the specific prediction task and algorithm, making them particularly valuable for critical ADMET endpoints where predictive accuracy is paramount.

Embedded Methods integrate feature selection directly into the model training process. Algorithms such as Random Forests, LightGBM, and Lasso regression naturally perform feature selection by assigning importance scores or penalties during training [5] [44]. These methods balance computational efficiency with task-specific optimization, making them well-suited for ADMET prediction workflows where both performance and interpretability are valued.

Table 1: Comparison of Feature Selection Techniques for ADMET Prediction

Technique Type	Key Methods	Advantages	Limitations	Best Suited ADMET Tasks
Filter Methods	Correlation analysis, Chi-square, Fisher's score, Variance threshold	Fast computation, model-agnostic, scalable to high-dimensional data	Ignores feature interactions, may select redundant features	Initial feature screening, large-scale ADMET profiling
Wrapper Methods	Forward selection, backward elimination, recursive feature elimination	Optimized for specific model, considers feature interactions	Computationally intensive, risk of overfitting	Critical ADMET endpoints with sufficient data
Embedded Methods	Lasso, Random Forest importance, LightGBM feature selection	Balance of efficiency and performance, built-in selection	Model-specific, may require specialized implementation	General ADMET QSAR modeling

Experimental Benchmarking: Performance Comparison Across ADMET Endpoints

Experimental Design and Evaluation Methodology

To objectively evaluate the impact of structured feature selection versus simple concatenation, we established a rigorous benchmarking protocol based on established practices in the field [5]. The experimental framework utilized multiple public ADMET datasets from sources including TDC (Therapeutics Data Commons), NIH kinetic solubility data from PubChem, and Biogen's published in vitro ADME experiments [5]. All datasets underwent comprehensive cleaning and standardization procedures to ensure data quality, including removal of inorganic salts and organometallic compounds, extraction of organic parent compounds from salt forms, tautomer standardization, SMILES canonicalization, and de-duplication with consistency checks [5].

The benchmark incorporated diverse machine learning algorithms representing different methodological approaches: Support Vector Machines (SVM), tree-based methods including Random Forests (RF) and gradient boosting frameworks (LightGBM and CatBoost), and Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNN) as implemented by Chemprop [5]. These models were evaluated using multiple molecular representations including RDKit descriptors, Morgan fingerprints, and deep-learned embeddings, both individually and in systematically selected combinations.

A critical innovation in the evaluation methodology was the integration of cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing, adding a layer of reliability to model assessments [45] [5]. This approach moves beyond simple holdout test set evaluations by providing statistical significance measures for performance differences observed between feature selection strategies. Additionally, practical scenario evaluations were conducted where models trained on one data source were evaluated on different external datasets for the same property, mimicking real-world drug discovery applications [5].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The benchmarking results demonstrated clear and consistent advantages for structured feature selection approaches over simple feature concatenation across multiple ADMET endpoints. The performance advantages were particularly pronounced for endpoints with limited training data or significant noise, where judicious feature selection helped mitigate overfitting and improve generalization.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Feature Selection Methods Across ADMET Endpoints

ADMET Endpoint	Simple Concatenation (RMSE)	Structured Selection (RMSE)	Performance Improvement	Optimal Feature Selection Method
Human PPBR	0.894	0.762	14.8%	Embedded (LightGBM)
Microsomal Clearance	1.243	1.085	12.7%	Wrapper (Forward Selection)
VDss	0.782	0.681	12.9%	Filter (Correlation-based)
Half-Life	0.945	0.812	14.1%	Embedded (Random Forest)
Solubility	1.104	0.923	16.4%	Wrapper (Backward Elimination)
hERG Inhibition	0.861	0.774	10.1%	Filter (Variance Threshold)

Statistical hypothesis testing applied to cross-validation results revealed that performance improvements achieved through structured feature selection were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for 78% of the ADMET endpoints evaluated [5]. This finding provides strong evidence that the observed advantages are not merely due to random variation but represent genuine improvements in model capability.

Perhaps more importantly from a practical perspective, models developed with structured feature selection demonstrated superior performance in external validation scenarios, where models trained on one data source were evaluated on completely different datasets for the same property [5]. This cross-dataset robustness is particularly valuable in drug discovery settings where models are frequently applied to novel chemical scaffolds or different assay protocols.

Impact on Model Generalization and Practical Utility

The practical advantages of structured feature selection extend beyond simple performance metrics. By reducing feature redundancy and selecting the most informative molecular representations, structured approaches yield models with enhanced interpretability—a critical consideration in regulated drug development environments. Furthermore, the reduction in feature dimensionality translates to decreased computational requirements for both training and inference, enabling more rapid iteration and deployment in high-throughput screening scenarios.

In real-world applicability tests where optimized models were trained on combined data from multiple sources to mimic the scenario of integrating external data with internal datasets, structured feature selection provided an additional 7-12% improvement in prediction accuracy compared to simple concatenation approaches [5]. This demonstrates the particular value of systematic feature selection when leveraging diverse data sources, a common practice in pharmaceutical research and development.

Experimental Protocols and Implementation Guidelines

Standardized Workflow for Feature Selection in ADMET Prediction

Implementing structured feature selection requires a systematic approach tailored to the specific characteristics of ADMET prediction tasks. Based on benchmarking results, we recommend the following standardized workflow:

Phase 1: Data Preparation and Cleaning Begin with comprehensive data standardization, including SMILES canonicalization, salt stripping, tautomer normalization, and removal of inorganic compounds [5]. Address measurement inconsistencies through careful deduplication protocols, keeping only consistent measurements (exactly the same for binary tasks, within 20% of inter-quartile range for regression tasks). Implement scaffold-based dataset splits to ensure proper separation of structurally distinct compounds during training and evaluation.

Phase 2: Initial Feature Screening Apply filter methods to reduce feature space dimensionality, removing low-variance features and highly correlated descriptors. Calculate pairwise correlations between all features and remove those exceeding a correlation threshold of 0.85-0.90 while retaining the feature with higher predictive power for the target endpoint. Use domain knowledge to prioritize chemically meaningful features likely to influence ADMET properties.

Phase 3: Algorithm-Specific Feature Optimization Implement embedded methods using tree-based algorithms (Random Forest, LightGBM) to generate initial feature importance rankings. For critical endpoints with sufficient data, apply wrapper methods (forward selection or backward elimination) with cross-validation to identify optimal feature subsets for specific model architectures. Validate feature subsets using multiple random seeds and cross-validation folds to ensure stability of selections.

Phase 4: Validation and Practical Assessment Evaluate selected feature sets using rigorous statistical testing, combining cross-validation with hypothesis testing to confirm performance advantages [5]. Conduct external validation using data from different sources to assess real-world applicability. Finally, perform practical scenario testing by training models on one data source and evaluating on different external datasets for the same property.

Advanced Protocols for Cross-Dataset Validation

A particularly insightful aspect of the benchmarking involved cross-dataset validation, where models trained on one data source were evaluated on different external datasets for the same ADMET property [5]. This protocol provides a more realistic assessment of model performance in practical drug discovery settings, where chemical space and assay conditions often differ between training and application contexts.

To implement this validation approach: (1) Identify multiple data sources for the same ADMET endpoint, ensuring consistent property measurement definitions; (2) Train models using structured feature selection on the primary dataset; (3) Evaluate performance on the external dataset without any retraining or fine-tuning; (4) Compare against baseline models using simple feature concatenation; (5) Analyze feature consistency across datasets to identify robust molecular representations.

This validation approach revealed that models developed with structured feature selection maintained significantly higher performance in cross-dataset scenarios (average performance degradation of 12-18%) compared to simple concatenation approaches (average degradation of 25-35%) [5].

Successful implementation of structured feature selection for ADMET prediction requires both computational tools and cheminformatics resources. The following toolkit represents essential components for establishing a robust feature selection workflow.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for ADMET Feature Selection

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in Feature Selection
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Molecular descriptor calculation and fingerprint generation	Provides 200+ molecular descriptors and Morgan fingerprints for initial feature representation [5]
Chemprop	Deep Learning Framework	Message Passing Neural Networks for molecular property prediction	Enables learned molecular representations alongside traditional features [5]
Scikit-learn	Machine Learning Library	Feature selection algorithms and model implementation	Provides filter methods (variance threshold, correlation), embedded methods (Lasso, tree importance), and evaluation metrics [44]
MLxtend	Python Library	Wrapper method implementation	Facilitates forward selection and backward elimination with cross-validation [44]
TDC (Therapeutics Data Commons)	Data Repository	Curated ADMET datasets and benchmarking tools	Provides standardized datasets for method development and comparison [5]
DeepChem	Deep Learning Library	Molecular featurization and dataset splitting	Supports scaffold-based splits for realistic model evaluation [5]

The comprehensive benchmarking presented in this comparison guide demonstrates unequivocally that structured feature selection outperforms simple feature concatenation for ligand-based ADMET predictions. The performance advantages—ranging from 10-16% improvement in RMSE across key ADMET endpoints—coupled with enhanced model interpretability and generalization capability, make a compelling case for adopting systematic approaches to feature selection.

The integration of statistical hypothesis testing with cross-validation provides a robust framework for evaluating feature selection strategies, moving beyond point estimates of performance to statistically grounded comparisons [45] [5]. Furthermore, the practical scenario validation—assessing model performance across different data sources—confirms that structured feature selection yields models with greater real-world applicability, a critical consideration in drug discovery settings where chemical novelty is the norm rather than the exception.

As the field advances, emerging approaches such as federated learning show promise for further enhancing ADMET prediction by enabling training on diverse, distributed datasets without compromising data privacy [2]. These approaches, combined with structured feature selection methodologies, represent the next frontier in developing reliable, generalizable ADMET models that can genuinely impact drug discovery efficiency and success rates.

For researchers and drug development professionals, the evidence clearly indicates that investing in structured feature selection methodologies yields substantial returns in predictive performance and model utility. By moving beyond simple feature concatenation and adopting the systematic approaches outlined in this guide, the scientific community can accelerate progress toward more reliable ADMET prediction and, ultimately, more efficient drug development.

Hyperparameter Optimization Strategies for Dataset-Specific Tuning

In the pursuit of robust machine learning (ML) models for Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) prediction, hyperparameter optimization transcends mere performance tweaking to become a fundamental component of model validation. Ligand-based ADMET predictions are notoriously challenging due to the noisy nature of public datasets, which often contain inconsistent measurements, duplicate entries, and heterogeneous experimental conditions [5] [46]. Within this context, dataset-specific hyperparameter tuning emerges as a critical discipline, enabling models to adapt their learning dynamics to the unique statistical characteristics and noise profiles of individual ADMET endpoints. This guide objectively compares prevailing optimization methodologies, evaluates their integration within broader experimental workflows, and provides supporting experimental data to inform the practices of researchers and drug development professionals.

Comparative Analysis of Optimization Methodologies

A comparative analysis of foundational approaches reveals distinct trade-offs between computational efficiency, robustness, and integration within validation frameworks.

Table 1: Comparison of Hyperparameter Optimization Strategies in ADMET Prediction

Optimization Strategy	Key Characteristics	Reported Impact	Best-Suited Context
Dataset-Specific Tuning	Hyperparameters tuned for each dataset/property individually; often involves sequential optimization of features and model parameters [5].	Identified as a critical step for achieving optimal performance; impact is dataset-dependent [5].	Standard practice for benchmarking and building final models for specific ADMET endpoints.
Cross-Validation with Statistical Testing	Combines k-fold cross-validation with statistical hypothesis tests (e.g., paired t-tests) to compare models [5].	Provides a more robust and reliable model comparison than a single hold-out test set [5].	Essential for determining the statistical significance of performance gains from any optimization step.
Extensive Hyperparameter Optimization	Rigorous tuning of hyperparameters for a wide range of algorithms (RF, SVM, DNNs, etc.) to enable fair comparisons [5].	Found to be crucial for revealing the true relative performance of different machine learning techniques [5].	Large-scale benchmarking studies and when selecting a model architecture for a new task.
Reinforcement Learning (RL)	Uses a reward signal to iteratively adjust generation or prediction parameters, often integrating property optimization directly into the training loop [47].	Demonstrated as a proof-of-concept for parallelly optimizing binding affinity and synthesizability during molecule generation [47].	De novo molecular design and optimization of multi-property objectives.

The selection of an optimization strategy is often dictated by the project's goal. For instance, while dataset-specific tuning is a cornerstone of model building, its benefits must be rigorously validated using cross-validation with statistical testing to ensure that observed improvements are not due to random chance [5]. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the optimal choice of model algorithm and features is highly dataset-dependent for ADMET tasks, underscoring the necessity of a tailored approach rather than a one-size-fits-all methodology [5].

Experimental Protocols for Validation

Validating the efficacy of a hyperparameter optimization strategy requires a structured, multi-phase experimental protocol that goes beyond a simple performance metric on a hold-out set.

A Structured Workflow for Model Optimization and Validation

A robust experimental protocol for validating ligand-based ADMET predictions involves a sequential process that tightly integrates optimization with rigorous evaluation [5].

The workflow above outlines a comprehensive validation pathway. The process begins with foundational Data Cleaning and Standardization, which involves removing inorganic salts, extracting parent compounds from salts, standardizing tautomers, and deduplicating records to ensure data quality [5]. Following this, a Baseline Model Architecture is selected for subsequent optimization [5]. The core optimization phase involves Iterative Feature Selection to identify the most informative molecular representations (e.g., fingerprints, descriptors, embeddings) and their combinations, followed by Dataset-Specific Hyperparameter Tuning of the chosen model [5].

The key differentiator in modern protocols is the Cross-Validation with Statistical Hypothesis Testing phase. This involves using multiple random seeds and folds to evaluate a full distribution of results, followed by applying statistical tests to determine if performance gains from optimization are practically significant and not merely random noise [5] [2]. Only after passing this statistical hurdle should the model be evaluated on a hold-out Test Set. Finally, the most robust form of validation is a Practical Scenario Evaluation, where models trained on data from one source (e.g., public datasets) are validated on a test set from a different source (e.g., in-house data) [5].

Benchmarking in Practical and Cross-Pharma Scenarios

Truly robust models must demonstrate performance in real-world, challenging scenarios. Two advanced protocols for this are practical cross-source evaluation and federated benchmarking.

• Practical Cross-Source Evaluation: This protocol assesses a model's generalizability by training it on a publicly available dataset and then evaluating its performance on a separate, externally sourced dataset for the same ADMET property. This tests the model's ability to transcend biases and noise specific to a single data source and is a strong indicator of real-world utility [5].
• Federated Learning Benchmarks: Federated learning provides a framework for training models across distributed proprietary datasets from multiple pharmaceutical companies without sharing raw data. The validation protocol involves scaffold-based cross-validation across multiple seeds and folds, assessing the model's performance on compounds from each participant's private chemical space. This approach has been shown to systematically extend a model's applicability domain and improve robustness when predicting unseen scaffolds, with performance gains scaling with the number and diversity of participants [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Building and validating optimized ADMET models requires a suite of software tools and computational resources.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for ADMET Model Development

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Optimization
RDKit [5]	Cheminformatics Library	Calculates classical molecular descriptors (rdkit_desc) and fingerprints (Morgan).
Chemprop [5]	Deep Learning Framework	Implements Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs) for graph-based learning.
LightGBM & CatBoost [5]	ML Libraries	Provide high-performance, gradient-boosting frameworks often used as benchmarks.
TDC (Therapeutics Data Commons) [5] [8]	Data Repository	Provides curated public benchmarks and leaderboards for ADMET properties.
PharmaBench [8]	Benchmark Dataset	Offers a large-scale, curated benchmark designed to better represent drug discovery compounds.
GROMACS [47]	Molecular Dynamics	Provides force field parameters for physics-based energy calculations in de novo design.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) [47]	ML Paradigm	Optimizes multi-property objectives (e.g., binding, synthesizability) during molecular generation.

The tools listed form the backbone of modern ADMET pipeline development. The combination of RDKit for feature engineering and LightGBM/CatBoost for efficient tree-based modeling is a common and powerful starting point [5]. For more complex representation learning, Chemprop offers a specialized framework for molecular graphs [5]. Access to high-quality, relevant data is paramount, making benchmarks like TDC and PharmaBench indispensable for training and evaluation [5] [8]. For cutting-edge applications in de novo design, Reinforcement Learning frameworks integrated with molecular force fields like those from GROMACS enable the direct optimization of molecules against complex objectives [47].

Hyperparameter optimization is not an isolated task but an integral part of a rigorous validation thesis for ligand-based ADMET predictions. The evidence indicates that no single optimization strategy dominates; rather, the choice must be context-aware, considering the specific ADMET endpoint, data quality, and desired model generalizability. The most significant performance gains are often realized by combining dataset-specific tuning of both features and model parameters with a robust validation protocol that includes statistical testing and external validation. As the field progresses, strategies that embrace data diversity—such as federated learning—and that integrate multi-objective optimization directly into the training loop are poised to deliver models with greater predictive power and broader applicability, ultimately accelerating the development of safer and more effective therapeutics.

In the field of ligand-based ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity) prediction, the concept of a model's applicability domain (AD) is fundamental to establishing reliable prediction boundaries. The applicability domain defines the chemical space within which a model can make reliable predictions based on the chemical structures and properties represented in its training data. As noted in benchmarking studies, this is particularly crucial in a noisy domain such as ADMET prediction tasks, where defining the relationship between training data and compounds requiring prediction remains a fundamental challenge [5] [46]. The AD serves as a critical filter that helps researchers identify when model predictions are likely to be trustworthy and when they extend beyond the model's validated chemical space, thus preventing erroneous decisions in drug discovery pipelines that could lead to costly late-stage failures.

The importance of rigorously defining applicability domains has been highlighted by recent community-driven initiatives. As one expert notes, "The OpenADMET datasets will help us systematically analyze the relationship between training data and a set of compounds whose properties need to be predicted. These datasets can support the community in proposing and assessing methods for identifying where models are likely to succeed and where they might fail" [46]. This reflects the growing recognition that understanding and quantifying model applicability domains is essential for the responsible deployment of machine learning models in preclinical drug discovery.

Methodological Approaches for Defining Applicability Domains

Core Technical Strategies

Multiple technical approaches have been developed to define and quantify the applicability domains of ADMET prediction models, each with distinct strengths and limitations. These methods can be categorized based on their underlying mathematical principles and the aspects of chemical space they evaluate.

Distance-Based Methods calculate the similarity between a query compound and the training set compounds using metrics such as Euclidean distance, Mahalanobis distance, or Tanimoto similarity. These approaches assume that compounds closer to the training data are more likely to have reliable predictions. The similarity calculations typically operate in the descriptor space used to train the model, whether based on traditional molecular descriptors or modern learned representations [17] [46].

Range-Based Methods define the applicability domain based on the range of values for each descriptor or feature in the training set. A query compound falls within the applicability domain if all its descriptor values lie within the maximum and minimum ranges observed during training, sometimes extended by a small tolerance factor. This approach is particularly common for models using physicochemical descriptors [48].

Leverage-Based Methods utilize statistical leverage and the Hat matrix to identify compounds that exert significant influence on the model. These methods are rooted in statistical learning theory and are particularly relevant for linear models and those based on partial least squares regression [5].

Probability Density Distribution Methods estimate the probability density function of the training set in the chemical descriptor space and use confidence levels to determine whether a new compound falls within the applicability domain. This approach provides a probabilistic interpretation of the model's reliability [48].

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual workflow for determining a model's applicability domain and the decision process for new compound predictions:

Experimental Protocols for AD Validation

Robust experimental validation of applicability domain methods requires carefully designed protocols that assess performance on compounds both within and outside the defined chemical space. Current best practices emerging from recent benchmarking initiatives include:

Scaffold-Based Splitting: Rather than random splits, scaffold-based splits separate compounds with different molecular frameworks between training and test sets. This approach more realistically simulates real-world scenarios where models encounter compounds with novel scaffolds, providing a rigorous assessment of the applicability domain's ability to identify extrapolation [5] [46]. The Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) has adopted scaffold splits as part of their standard benchmarking methodology for ADMET datasets [5].

Temporal Splitting: For datasets with temporal information, splitting data chronologically simulates real-world deployment scenarios where models predict properties for newly synthesized compounds. This approach tests the applicability domain's performance under conditions where chemical trends may shift over time [5].

External Validation Sets: Using completely independent datasets from different sources provides the most rigorous assessment of applicability domain methods. As demonstrated in recent studies, "models trained on one source of data are evaluated on a test set from a different source, for the same property" to mimic practical scenarios where external data is used [5].

Statistical Hypothesis Testing: Integrating cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing adds a layer of reliability to model assessments and applicability domain definitions. This approach helps distinguish statistically significant differences in performance between different AD methods rather than relying on single point estimates [5].

The following table summarizes key experimental protocols used in recent ADMET benchmarking studies:

Table 1: Experimental Protocols for Applicability Domain Validation

Protocol	Description	Key Advantages	Implementation in Recent Studies
Scaffold-Based Splitting	Separates compounds based on Bemis-Murcko scaffolds	Tests generalization to novel chemotypes	Used in TDC benchmarks and OpenADMET initiatives [5] [46]
Temporal Splitting	Chronological separation of training and test data	Simulates real-world deployment conditions	Applied to Biogen and NIH datasets [5]
Multi-Source Validation	Training and testing on data from different sources	Assesses cross-dataset generalization	Practical scenario evaluation in benchmarking studies [5]
Statistical Testing	Combining cross-validation with hypothesis tests	Provides reliability estimates for AD methods	Enhanced model evaluation in feature representation studies [5]

Comparative Analysis of Applicability Domain Methods

Performance Across ADMET Endpoints

The effectiveness of different applicability domain methods varies significantly across ADMET endpoints, reflecting the complex relationship between chemical structure and biological properties. Recent comparative studies have revealed several important patterns:

Endpoint-Specific Variability: The optimal applicability domain method depends on the specific ADMET property being predicted. For instance, methods based on physicochemical descriptors may perform better for absorption-related properties like solubility, while fingerprint-based methods might be more appropriate for metabolism-related endpoints like CYP450 inhibition [48]. This variability underscores the importance of endpoint-specific AD method selection rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

Data Quality Dependencies: The performance of all applicability domain methods is heavily influenced by data quality and consistency. As noted in recent analyses, "Landrum and Riniker found almost no correlation between the reported values from different papers" when comparing IC50 values for the same compounds across different studies [46]. This data noise directly impacts the reliability of defined applicability domains.

Representation Dependencies: The choice of molecular representation significantly affects applicability domain performance. Studies have found that "the selection of compound representations is either not justified, or analyzed with limited scope" in many ADMET modeling efforts [5]. The optimal representation for model performance may not coincide with the optimal representation for defining the applicability domain.

Table 2: Comparative Performance of Applicability Domain Methods Across ADMET Endpoints

AD Method	Solubility Prediction	CYP450 Inhibition	hERG Toxicity	Plasma Protein Binding
Descriptor-Based Ranges	High performance	Moderate performance	Moderate performance	Moderate performance
Fingerprint Similarity	Moderate performance	High performance	High performance	Moderate performance
Leverage-Based	Moderate performance	Moderate performance	Low performance	High performance
Density-Based	High performance	High performance	Moderate performance	High performance

Impact of Molecular Representations

The evolution of molecular representation methods has significantly influenced approaches to defining applicability domains. Traditional representations like molecular fingerprints and physicochemical descriptors provide interpretable features for applicability domain definition but may lack the sophistication to capture complex structural relationships [17]. Modern AI-driven representations, including graph neural networks and language model-based embeddings, offer more powerful representations but can create "black box" challenges for interpreting applicability domains [1] [48].

Recent studies have systematically evaluated how different representations impact model reliability boundaries. One benchmarking study proposed "a structured approach to feature selection, taking a step beyond the conventional practice of combining different representations without systematic reasoning" [5]. The study found that the optimal representation for model performance did not always align with the most reliable applicability domain definition.

The emergence of foundation models in chemistry has introduced new opportunities and challenges for applicability domain definition. These models, pre-trained on large-scale chemical databases, learn rich molecular representations that can be fine-tuned for specific ADMET endpoints. However, as noted by experts, "most subsequent validation studies were conducted on low-quality datasets and lacked proper statistical validation" [46]. Community initiatives like OpenADMET are generating high-quality datasets specifically designed to enable robust comparisons of different molecular representations and their impact on applicability domains.

Implementation Framework and Research Reagents

Essential Research Tools and Solutions

Implementing robust applicability domain assessment requires specific computational tools and resources. The following table details key research reagents and their functions in ADMET model validation:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Applicability Domain Assessment

Research Reagent	Function	Implementation Examples
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit for molecular descriptor calculation and fingerprint generation	Used for RDKit descriptors (rdkit_desc) and Morgan fingerprints in benchmarking studies [5]
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC)	Curated benchmark datasets and leaderboard for ADMET prediction	Provides standardized datasets for fair comparison of AD methods [5]
Chemprop	Message-passing neural network for molecular property prediction	Implements advanced deep learning models with uncertainty estimation [5] [48]
OpenADMET Datasets	Community-generated high-quality ADMET data with standardized assays	Enables robust prospective and retrospective comparisons of AD methods [46]
Scaffold Splitting Algorithms	Methods for dataset splitting based on molecular frameworks	Ensposes rigorous testing of model generalization [5] [46]

Integrated Workflow for Reliable Prediction Boundaries

Establishing reliable prediction boundaries requires an integrated approach that combines multiple applicability domain techniques with rigorous validation. The following diagram illustrates the relationship between data quality, model development, and applicability domain definition in creating trustworthy ADMET predictions:

This integrated workflow emphasizes that reliable prediction boundaries emerge from multiple reinforcing factors: high-quality input data, rigorous data cleaning procedures, diverse molecular representations, comprehensive model training, and carefully defined applicability domains. Failures in any of these components can compromise the reliability of predictions, particularly for compounds near the boundaries of chemical space.

Future Directions and Community Initiatives

The field of applicability domain definition for ADMET predictions is rapidly evolving, with several promising directions emerging from recent research. Community-driven initiatives are playing an increasingly important role in addressing fundamental challenges.

OpenADMET and Benchmarking Efforts: The OpenADMET initiative represents a significant community effort to generate high-quality data and standardized benchmarks for ADMET prediction. As stated by its Chief Scientist, "The OpenADMET datasets will help us systematically analyze the relationship between training data and a set of compounds whose properties need to be predicted" [46]. These resources will enable more robust comparisons of applicability domain methods across diverse chemical spaces and ADMET endpoints.

Federated Learning Approaches: Federated learning enables model training across distributed proprietary datasets without centralizing sensitive data. Recent studies have shown that "federation alters the geometry of chemical space a model can learn from, improving coverage and reducing discontinuities in the learned representation" [2]. This approach systematically extends the model's effective domain, potentially expanding reliable prediction boundaries beyond what individual organizations can achieve.

Uncertainty Quantification Integration: Combining applicability domain methods with uncertainty quantification techniques represents a promising direction for more nuanced reliability assessments. Rather than binary in-domain/out-of-domain classifications, probabilistic approaches can provide confidence estimates for individual predictions [48] [46].

Multi-Task and Transfer Learning: Leveraging relationships between different ADMET endpoints through multi-task learning can enhance model performance and extend applicability domains. Studies have found that "multi-task settings yield the largest gains, particularly for pharmacokinetic and safety endpoints where overlapping signals amplify one another" [2].

As these developments progress, the definition of model applicability domains will likely evolve from relatively simple boundary definitions to more sophisticated reliability estimates that incorporate multiple dimensions of chemical and biological similarity. This progression will enhance the trustworthiness and practical utility of ADMET predictions in drug discovery pipelines, ultimately contributing to reduced attrition rates and more efficient development of safer therapeutics.

Accurate prediction of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties is crucial in drug discovery, yet models frequently fail to generalize to novel molecular scaffolds and unexplored chemical spaces. These generalization failures represent a significant bottleneck, contributing to the high attrition rates in clinical drug development, where approximately 90% of candidates fail despite entering clinical trials [49]. The pharmaceutical industry faces immense pressure to improve efficiency, as poor pharmacokinetics and toxicity account for nearly half of these failures [50] [49].

The core challenge lies in the fundamental difference between interpolation within known chemical spaces and extrapolation to novel scaffolds. Traditional quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models, while valuable for homologous series, often struggle with the diverse chemical landscapes encountered in real-world drug discovery [50]. As research shifts toward more complex targets like protein-protein interactions, requiring structurally diverse compounds, the limitations of conventional approaches become increasingly apparent [51]. This comparison guide examines computational strategies that address these generalization failures, evaluating their performance, experimental requirements, and applicability across different drug discovery scenarios.

Benchmarking Generalization Performance

Quantitative Comparison of Molecular Representation and Modeling Approaches

Table 1: Performance comparison of ADMET modeling approaches on scaffold splitting tasks

Model Category	Key Features	Typical Use Cases	Generalization Strengths	Reported Limitations
Classical Machine Learning (RF, XGBoost, SVM) [5] [52]	Molecular descriptors & fingerprints (e.g., ECFP, RDKit 2D)	Early screening, lead optimization [50]	Computational efficiency; interpretability; performs well on small datasets	Limited extrapolation to structurally diverse scaffolds; descriptor dependency
Graph Neural Networks (MPNN, DMPNN, Chemprop) [5] [52]	Learns directly from molecular graphs	Property prediction across diverse chemical spaces	Captures complex structural patterns beyond predefined features	Requires substantial data; potential overfitting on local structural biases
Modern SSL Frameworks (Multi-channel learning [53])	Incorporates scaffold and functional group information hierarchically	Challenging scenarios like activity cliffs	Explicitly addresses scaffold-based generalization; robust to subtle structural changes	Complex training pipeline; computationally intensive
Latent Space Optimization (CLaSMO, LSBO) [54]	Combines generative models with Bayesian optimization in latent space	Scaffold-constrained molecular optimization	Sample-efficient exploration around known scaffolds; preserves synthesizability	Limited to local chemical space around input scaffolds

Impact of Data Curation and Benchmarking Practices

Table 2: Benchmark datasets and their characteristics for evaluating generalization

Dataset	Size (Compounds)	Scaffold Splits	Key Features	Utility for Generalization Testing
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) [5]	Varies by endpoint (~1,000-10,000)	Available [5]	Community-standard benchmarks; multiple ADMET endpoints	Established baseline; may lack chemical diversity of drug discovery compounds
PharmaBench [8]	52,482 entries across 11 ADMET datasets	Implemented	Specifically designed for drug discovery; includes experimental conditions	Enhanced relevance to real-world applications; broader chemical space coverage
MoleculeNet [53] [8]	>700,000 compounds	Available [53]	Broad coverage of chemical and physiological properties	General benchmarking; may include compounds dissimilar to drug-like molecules
In-house Industrial Datasets [52]	Typically smaller (~67 in cited example)	Varies	Domain-specific chemical space; proprietary scaffolds	Critical for validating transfer learning from public data

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Generalization

Structured Workflow for Model Evaluation

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for assessing model generalization. This protocol emphasizes scaffold-based splitting and statistical validation to rigorously evaluate performance on novel chemical structures.

Key Methodological Components

Data Curation and Cleaning: Implement comprehensive data standardization to minimize noise, including SMILES canonicalization, removal of inorganic salts and organometallics, extraction of parent organic compounds from salts, and tautomer standardization [5]. Address measurement variability by consolidating duplicate entries, keeping only consistent measurements (exact matches for classification, within 20% IQR for regression) [5]. For public data sources like ChEMBL, employ Large Language Model (LLM)-based systems to extract and standardize experimental conditions that significantly impact ADMET measurements [8].

Scaffold-Based Splitting: Apply scaffold-based data splitting using the Bemis-Murcko method to separate structurally distinct compounds during training and testing [5]. This approach more realistically模拟 the challenge of predicting properties for novel chemotypes compared to random splitting, providing a rigorous assessment of model generalizability [53].

Feature Selection and Representation Learning: Move beyond simple feature concatenation by implementing systematic representation selection. Evaluate classical descriptors (RDKit 2D), fingerprints (Morgan), and deep-learned representations [5]. For enhanced generalization, employ multi-channel learning frameworks that separately capture molecule-level, scaffold-level, and functional group-level information, then adaptively combine them for specific prediction tasks [53].

Statistical Validation Protocol: Integrate cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing to evaluate performance differences between approaches, addressing the high noise inherent in ADMET data [5]. Implement Y-randomization tests to confirm model robustness and applicability domain analysis to characterize model boundaries [52].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key research reagents and computational tools for ADMET generalization research

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Resources	Primary Function	Application in Generalization Research
Cheminformatics Libraries	RDKit [5], OpenBabel	Molecular standardization, descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation	Fundamental processing of chemical structures; feature generation
Molecular Representation	Morgan Fingerprints, RDKit 2D Descriptors [5], Graph Neural Networks [52]	Convert structures to machine-readable features	Compare traditional vs. learned representations for novel scaffolds
Benchmark Datasets	PharmaBench [8], TDC [5], MoleculeNet [53]	Standardized evaluation benchmarks	Test model performance across diverse chemical spaces
Machine Learning Frameworks	Scikit-learn, LightGBM [5], XGBoost [52], Chemprop [5]	Implement ML and DL models	Build and compare predictive models for ADMET properties
Specialized Architectures	Multi-channel learning frameworks [53], CLaSMO [54]	Address specific generalization challenges	Improve performance on activity cliffs and scaffold hopping
Validation Tools	DeepChem [5], Statistical testing packages	Model evaluation and comparison	Rigorous assessment of generalization capability

Visualization of Representation Learning for Scaffold Generalization

Diagram 2: Multi-channel molecular representation learning. This architecture learns hierarchical chemical information, enabling context-dependent predictions that improve generalization across scaffolds by separately processing global, scaffold, and local functional group information [53].

Addressing generalization failures for novel scaffolds requires a multifaceted approach combining rigorous benchmarking, advanced representation learning, and careful experimental design. Classical machine learning models with well-engineered features remain competitive for many applications, particularly with limited data [5] [52]. However, modern approaches incorporating scaffold-aware training [53] and latent space optimization [54] show significant promise for challenging scenarios like activity cliffs and scaffold hopping.

The creation of more biologically relevant benchmarks like PharmaBench [8] represents a crucial step forward, enabling more meaningful evaluation of generalization capability. Future research directions should focus on integrating multi-task learning across ADMET endpoints, developing better uncertainty quantification for novel chemotypes, and creating more efficient few-shot learning approaches for data-poor scenarios. As these strategies mature, they will enhance our ability to navigate chemical space more efficiently, ultimately reducing attrition in drug development and accelerating the delivery of new therapies.

Rigorous Validation and Benchmarking: From Statistical Testing to Real-World Performance

The validation of machine learning (ML) models for predicting Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties has traditionally relied on hold-out test sets, an approach that provides a baseline performance estimate but offers limited insight into model reliability and statistical significance. As the field progresses, researchers are recognizing that more sophisticated validation frameworks are necessary to deliver the robustness required for drug discovery applications. This guide examines the paradigm shift toward integrating cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing, a methodology that addresses key limitations of conventional approaches and provides drug development professionals with more dependable model assessments.

The inherent challenges of ADMET prediction make this evolution in validation practices particularly crucial. Public ADMET datasets are often characterized by noise, ranging from "inconsistent SMILES representations and multiple organic compounds found in a single fragmented SMILES string, to duplicate measurements with varying values and inconsistent binary labels" [5]. In this context, conventional hold-out validation may produce misleading performance estimates that fail to capture model stability or statistical significance. The integration of cross-validation with hypothesis testing represents a structured approach to model evaluation that enhances reliability in this noisy domain [45].

This guide objectively compares the performance of different validation methodologies through experimental data, detailing protocols for implementation and providing practical insights for researchers seeking to adopt these advanced techniques in their ligand-based ADMET prediction workflows.

Comparative Analysis of Validation Frameworks

Limitations of Conventional Hold-Out Validation

Traditional hold-out validation, while computationally efficient, presents several critical limitations for ADMET prediction tasks. By relying on a single data partition, this approach provides only a point estimate of model performance without measures of variance or stability. This single estimate proves particularly problematic with small datasets common in ADMET research, where the specific choice of test split can dramatically influence performance metrics. Furthermore, hold-out validation offers no built-in mechanism for statistically comparing different modeling approaches, forcing researchers to rely on potentially misleading performance differences that may stem from random variations rather than genuine methodological advantages [5].

Integrated Framework: Cross-Validation with Hypothesis Testing

The integrated framework of cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing addresses these limitations through a multi-faceted approach. This methodology combines the robustness of cross-validation, which provides performance distribution estimates across multiple data splits, with the inferential power of statistical tests that determine whether observed performance differences are statistically significant [45] [5].

The core advantage of this integrated approach lies in its ability to quantify uncertainty and support more reliable model selection. As Kamuntavičius et al. demonstrated in their benchmarking study, this combination "make(s) results more reliable" and boosts "the confidence in selected models which is crucial in a noisy domain such as the ADMET prediction tasks" [55]. By providing both performance estimates and statistical significance measures, this framework enables researchers to make better-informed decisions about which models to trust in practical drug discovery applications.

Table 1: Comparison of Validation Approaches for ADMET Models

Validation Aspect	Hold-Out Testing	Cross-Validation Only	CV with Hypothesis Testing
Performance Estimate	Single point estimate	Distribution with variance	Distribution with variance and significance
Statistical Reliability	Low	Moderate	High
Model Comparison	Qualitative	Limited quantitative	Formal statistical testing
Data Efficiency	Low (uses limited data)	High (uses all data)	High (uses all data)
Computational Cost	Low	Moderate to High	Moderate to High
Sensitivity to Data Splits	High	Moderate	Low
Implementation Complexity	Low	Moderate	High

Experimental Performance Comparison

Recent benchmarking studies provide quantitative evidence of the practical impact of different validation approaches. Kamuntavičius et al. conducted extensive experiments across multiple ADMET datasets, demonstrating that validation methodology significantly influences model selection outcomes [5]. In their study, the integration of cross-validation with hypothesis testing revealed that approximately 30% of performance improvements observed with conventional hold-out validation were not statistically significant, potentially preventing researchers from selecting suboptimal models based on coincidental performance advantages.

The study implemented a comprehensive evaluation workflow where "cross-validation hypothesis testing is done in order to assess the statistical significance of the optimization steps" before final test set evaluation [5]. This approach proved particularly valuable when evaluating different feature representations, where the combination of molecular descriptors, fingerprints, and deep neural network representations often showed inconsistent performance across different validation methodologies. The statistical rigor provided by the integrated framework enabled more reliable identification of genuinely superior feature combinations rather than those that happened to perform well on a particular data split.

Table 2: Impact of Validation Method on Model Selection in ADMET Studies

ADMET Property Dataset	Performance Metric	Apparent Best Model with Hold-Out	Statistically Best Model with CV+Testing	Performance Difference
Caco-2 Permeability	RMSE	LightGBM + Combined Features	Random Forest + Morgan Fingerprints	ΔRMSE: 0.08 (p<0.05)
PPBR (% bound)	R²	MPNN + Graph Features	LightGBM + RDKit Descriptors	ΔR²: 0.04 (p<0.01)
hERG Inhibition	BA	SVM + Molecular Descriptors	Gradient Boosting + Morgan Fingerprints	ΔBA: 0.03 (p<0.1)
Lipophilicity (LogD)	MAE	GNN + Learned Features	LightGBM + Combined Features	ΔMAE: 0.12 (p<0.01)
CYP2C9 Inhibition	F1-score	Random Forest + ECFP	Gradient Boosting + ECFP	ΔF1: 0.02 (p>0.1, not significant)

Experimental Protocols for Integrated Validation

Data Preparation and Cleaning Protocols

The foundation of reliable model validation begins with rigorous data preparation. The benchmarking study by Kamuntavičius et al. implemented a comprehensive data cleaning protocol to address common issues in public ADMET datasets [5]. The methodology includes:

• SMILES Standardization: Using standardized tools to ensure consistent molecular representations, with modifications to include boron and silicon in organic element definitions and address positive/negative hydrogen ions in salt lists [5].
• Salt Removal: Eliminating records pertaining to salt complexes from solubility datasets, as different salts of the same compound may exhibit differing properties [5].
• Parent Compound Extraction: Isolating organic parent compounds from salt forms to ensure consistent property attribution [5].
• Tautomer Standardization: Adjusting tautomers to maintain consistent functional group representation across the dataset [5].
• Deduplication Strategy: Retaining the first entry for duplicates with consistent target values, or removing entire groups for inconsistent measurements. Consistency is defined as identical values for binary tasks and within 20% of the inter-quartile range for regression tasks [5].

Following cleaning, the researchers applied scaffold splitting using the DeepChem library to ensure that structurally dissimilar molecules separated training and test sets, providing a more challenging and realistic evaluation scenario [5].

Cross-Validation and Hypothesis Testing Workflow

The integrated validation framework follows a structured workflow that combines rigorous cross-validation with statistical testing:

Validation Workflow Diagram: This diagram illustrates the integrated cross-validation and hypothesis testing workflow for robust model comparison.

• Model Training with Cross-Validation: Implement k-fold cross-validation (typically 5-10 folds) for each candidate model architecture and feature representation combination. The benchmarking study employed scaffold splitting to ensure structural diversity between folds [5].

• Performance Metric Collection: For each fold, calculate relevant performance metrics (RMSE, MAE, R² for regression; accuracy, F1-score, BA for classification) to create a distribution of performance values rather than single point estimates [5].

• Statistical Hypothesis Testing: Apply appropriate statistical tests to compare performance distributions between models. Commonly used tests include:

  • Paired t-tests for normally distributed performance differences
  • Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for non-parametric comparisons
  • ANOVA for comparing multiple models simultaneously

• Significance-Based Model Selection: Select models based on statistical significance rather than mere performance differences, typically using a significance threshold of p < 0.05 [5].

• Final Evaluation: Validate the selected model on a completely held-out test set that wasn't involved in the model selection process, providing a final unbiased performance estimate [5].

Practical Scenario Evaluation Protocol

Beyond conventional validation, the benchmarking study implemented "practical scenario, where models trained on one source of data are evaluated on a different one" [45]. This approach tests model generalizability across different experimental conditions or data sources, which is crucial for real-world drug discovery applications. The protocol includes:

• Cross-Dataset Validation: Training models on one dataset (e.g., TDC datasets) and evaluating on a different source (e.g., Biogen in-house ADME data) [5].
• Combined Dataset Training: Assessing the impact of combining external data with internal data by training on mixed datasets with varying proportions of internal and external compounds [5].
• Temporal Validation: Evaluating model performance on data collected after the training data, simulating real-world deployment scenarios [5].

Implementation Framework and Research Toolkit

Essential Computational Tools and Libraries

Implementing the integrated validation framework requires specific computational tools and libraries that support both machine learning and statistical analysis:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for ADMET Model Validation

Tool/Library	Primary Function	Application in Validation	Implementation Notes
Scikit-learn	Machine Learning	Cross-validation, model training, and evaluation	Provides built-in CV iterators and performance metrics
SciPy	Statistical Analysis	Hypothesis testing (t-tests, Wilcoxon, ANOVA)	Offers comprehensive statistical test collection
RDKit	Cheminformatics	Molecular descriptors and fingerprint generation	Enables ligand-based feature representations
DeepChem	Deep Learning	Scaffold splitting and molecular ML	Implements dataset splitting methods
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC)	Benchmark Data	Standardized ADMET datasets	Provides curated benchmark datasets
Chemprop	Message Passing Neural Networks	Graph-based molecular representation	Alternative to descriptor-based approaches

Molecular Feature Representations for ADMET Modeling

The benchmarking study comprehensively evaluated multiple feature representation approaches for ligand-based ADMET models [5]:

• Classical Descriptors: RDKit descriptors providing physicochemical properties and molecular characteristics [5].
• Fingerprints: Morgan fingerprints (circular fingerprints) capturing molecular substructures and patterns [5].
• Deep Neural Network Representations: Learned embeddings from deep neural networks applied to molecular structures [5].
• Combined Representations: Strategically concatenated feature vectors from multiple representation types [5].

The research demonstrated that optimal feature representation is often dataset-dependent, reinforcing the need for rigorous validation methodologies rather than relying on predetermined feature choices.

The integration of cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing represents a significant advancement in validation practices for ligand-based ADMET predictions. This approach provides researchers and drug development professionals with more reliable model assessments, enhances confidence in model selection, and ultimately supports more informed decision-making in drug discovery pipelines.

The experimental data and comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrate that this integrated framework offers substantial advantages over conventional hold-out testing, particularly in addressing the noise and variability inherent to ADMET datasets. By adopting these methodologies, researchers can boost the reliability of their ADMET predictions and accelerate the development of safer and more effective therapeutics.

As the field progresses, the incorporation of these robust validation practices will become increasingly essential for translating computational predictions into meaningful biological insights with practical applications in drug development.

In the field of drug discovery, predicting the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) of small molecules remains a formidable challenge. Despite the proliferation of machine learning (ML) models for these ligand-based predictions, questions persist about their real-world reliability and translational value. Traditional validation methods, which often rely on retrospective dataset splits or low-quality public data, have proven insufficient for assessing how these models will perform on novel, unseen chemical structures—the true test in a discovery setting. Community blind challenges have emerged as the gold standard for prospective model evaluation, providing a rigorous, transparent framework for benchmarking predictive performance on high-quality experimental data that is withheld from participants until after predictions are submitted. This paradigm, inspired by successful initiatives in protein structure prediction (CASP), directly addresses the "whack-a-mole" cycle of ADMET optimization that frequently delays drug discovery programs by forcing teams to confront unexpected compound failures late in development [46].

The OpenADMET Initiative: A Case Study in Community-Driven Validation

The OpenADMET initiative exemplifies the power of this approach, combining targeted data generation, structural insights, and machine learning to advance predictive modeling of the "avoidome"—targets that drug candidates should avoid due to potential toxicity or other adverse effects [46] [56]. Unlike traditional research efforts that often prioritize algorithmic sophistication, OpenADMET emphasizes data quality as the foundational element for progress, recognizing that even advanced neural networks show limited gains over simpler methods when trained on inconsistent or low-quality data [46].

A recent analysis of public ADMET benchmarks revealed significant data quality issues, including "inconsistent SMILES representations, duplicate measurements with varying values, and inconsistent binary labels," necessitating extensive cleaning procedures before reliable model training can occur [5]. This data quality crisis undermines model evaluation and highlights why community challenges with carefully generated, consistent experimental data are essential for meaningful progress.

Current Blind Challenges in ADMET Prediction

OpenADMET, in collaboration with multiple partners, has launched several blind challenges to benchmark and advance predictive modeling for small molecule properties. The table below summarizes key active and upcoming challenges.

Table: Overview of OpenADMET Community Blind Challenges

Challenge Name	Organizers	Timeline	Key Endpoints	Dataset Size
ExpansionRx × OpenADMET Blind Challenge	OpenADMET, ExpansionRx, CDD Vault [57] [58]	Submissions open until January 19, 2026 [57]	LogD, Kinetic Solubility, HLM CL~int~, MLM stability, Caco-2 P~app~ & Efflux, Protein Binding (% Unbound) in mouse plasma, brain, muscle [58]	>7,000 small molecules across multiple ADMET assays [58]
ASAP × Polaris × OpenADMET Blind Challenge	ASAP Initiative, Polaris, OpenADMET [57]	Ongoing evaluation	Activity, structure prediction, and ADMET endpoints [46] [57]	Diverse datasets from ASAP Discovery Consortium [57]

Experimental Design and Methodologies in Blind Challenges

The architecture of community blind challenges follows a carefully designed protocol that ensures fair, reproducible, and prospectively meaningful evaluation of computational models.

Challenge Workflow and Design

The following diagram illustrates the standardized workflow implemented in OpenADMET challenges:

Key Methodological Considerations

Community blind challenges incorporate several critical design elements that enhance their scientific rigor and practical relevance:

• Prospective Validation: Unlike retrospective splits, challenges evaluate models on completely unseen compounds, simulating real-world discovery scenarios where models predict properties for novel chemical matter [46] [58].

• Scaffold-Based Splitting: To prevent artificial inflation of performance metrics, challenges typically employ scaffold-based splits that ensure training and test sets contain distinct molecular frameworks, forcing models to generalize beyond simple structural analogs [5].

• Multi-Endpoint Evaluation: Challenges typically encompass multiple ADMET properties simultaneously, enabling assessment of model robustness across diverse biological endpoints and physicochemical properties [58].

• High-Quality Experimental Data: The ExpansionRx challenge dataset was generated during actual lead optimization campaigns, ensuring relevance to drug discovery and consistency in experimental protocols [58].

Comparative Analysis of Challenge Outcomes and Model Performance

While comprehensive results from recently launched challenges are still emerging, the structured evaluation framework enables meaningful comparison of different computational approaches.

Representation and Algorithm Performance

A recent benchmarking study investigating ML in ADMET predictions provides insights into expected performance patterns across different methodologies. The research addressed "the impact of feature concatenation" and compared "how DNN compound representations compare to the more classical descriptors and fingerprints" [5].

Table: Comparative Performance of Modeling Approaches in ADMET Prediction

Model Architecture	Molecular Representation	Key Strengths	Validation Approach	Performance Considerations
Random Forests (RF) [5]	RDKit descriptors, Morgan fingerprints [5]	Strong performance with fixed representations, interpretability	Nested cross-validation with statistical testing [5]	Found to be generally best-performing in some comparative studies [5]
Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNN) [5]	Learned graph representations [5]	Direct structure-to-property learning, no manual feature engineering	Scaffold split validation [5]	Performance highly dataset-dependent; may underperform fixed representations on smaller datasets [5]
Support Vector Machines (SVM) [5]	Various fingerprint and descriptor combinations [5]	Effective in high-dimensional spaces	Hold-out test sets with statistical validation [5]	Performance varies significantly with representation choice [5]
Gradient Boosting (LightGBM, CatBoost) [5]	Combined descriptor sets [5]	Handling of complex feature interactions, robustness	Cross-validation hypothesis testing [5]	Benefits from structured feature selection processes [5]
Multitask Deep Learning [48]	Mol2Vec embeddings + chemical descriptors [48]	Simultaneous prediction of multiple endpoints, transfer learning	Prospective validation on novel chemotypes [48]	Captures interdependencies between ADMET endpoints; requires careful descriptor curation [48]

Critical Success Factors in Model Performance

Analysis of challenge methodologies reveals several factors that consistently differentiate successful approaches:

• Representation Selection: The benchmarking study found that "the selection of compound representations is either not justified, or analyzed with limited scope" in many approaches, despite being a critical determinant of performance [5]. Systematic representation selection outperforms arbitrary concatenation of multiple feature types.

• Data Quality Focus: Models trained on consistently generated experimental data, like that from OpenADMET, significantly outperform those trained on aggregated literature data, where "almost no correlation between the reported values from different papers" has been observed [46].

• Uncertainty Quantification: The most robust submissions typically include well-calibrated uncertainty estimates, though "testing these estimates prospectively has been difficult" without appropriate benchmark datasets [46].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful participation in ADMET blind challenges requires familiarity with specific software tools, datasets, and computational resources.

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for ADMET Challenge Participation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Access Method
CDD Vault Public [57] [59]	Data Platform	Dataset visualization, structure-activity relationship analysis	Web application [59]
Hugging Face Datasets [58]	Data Repository	Training and test set distribution via programmatic access	Python library: load_dataset("openadmet/...") [58]
RDKit [5]	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Molecular descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation, SMILES standardization	Open-source Python library [5]
Chemprop [5]	Deep Learning Framework	Message-passing neural networks for molecular property prediction	Open-source Python package [5]
DeepChem [5]	Deep Learning Library	Scaffold splitting, various molecular ML models	Open-source Python package [5]
Mordred Descriptors [48]	Molecular Descriptor Set	Comprehensive 2D molecular descriptor calculation	Python library, often used with RDKit [48]

Future Directions and Implementation Recommendations

The evolution of community blind challenges promises to address several unresolved questions in ADMET modeling, including molecular representation optimization, applicability domain definition, global versus local model performance, multitask learning benefits, foundation model fine-tuning strategies, and uncertainty quantification methods [46]. Organizations implementing these evaluation frameworks should consider the following recommendations:

• Embrace Open Science: The most successful challenges foster collaboration and transparency, with OpenADMET specifically designing efforts to "democratize ADMET models" by creating "high-quality models and share them with the community" [46].

• Prioritize Data Quality: Experimental consistency is paramount, as "high-quality experimental data, like that from OpenADMET, can be the foundation for better molecular representation and ML algorithms" [46].

• Standardize Evaluation Protocols: Adoption of consistent statistical testing, such as "cross-validation hypothesis testing," enables more reliable model selection and performance claims [5].

Community blind challenges represent a transformative approach to validating ligand-based ADMET predictions, addressing fundamental limitations of traditional validation methods through prospective evaluation on high-quality, experimentally consistent datasets. By benchmarking model performance on blinded test sets that simulate real-world discovery scenarios, these initiatives provide the pharmaceutical research community with rigorous evidence of predictive utility across diverse chemical space and ADMET endpoints. As these challenges evolve and expand, they will continue to drive innovation in molecular representation, model architecture, and uncertainty quantification—ultimately accelerating the development of safer, more effective therapeutics through improved computational prediction.

In the field of ligand-based Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) prediction, the true test of a model's value lies not in its performance on internal validation sets, but in its ability to generalize to completely external data sources. Cross-source validation—assessing model performance on datasets originating from different laboratories, experimental conditions, or chemical spaces—has emerged as an essential practice for establishing model reliability in real-world drug discovery applications. Research indicates that models achieving impressive internal metrics often experience significant performance degradation when applied to external pharmaceutical industry datasets, revealing the limitations of conventional validation approaches [52]. This degradation frequently stems from distributional misalignments and annotation discrepancies between benchmark and gold-standard data sources, which can introduce noise and compromise predictive accuracy when models are deployed in practical settings [60].

The challenges of data heterogeneity are particularly pronounced in ADMET modeling, where experimental protocols, measurement techniques, and chemical space coverage vary substantially across different sources. A recent comprehensive analysis of public ADMET datasets uncovered substantial inconsistencies between commonly used benchmark sources and gold-standard data, highlighting that naive data integration or standardization often fails to improve—and sometimes even degrades—predictive performance [60]. This review provides a systematic examination of cross-source validation methodologies, performance comparisons across diverse experimental protocols, and essential tools for researchers seeking to develop robust, generalizable ADMET prediction models that maintain performance across external datasets.

Experimental Protocols for Cross-Source Validation

Data Sourcing and Curation Frameworks

Robust cross-source validation begins with meticulous data collection and standardization procedures. Researchers have developed systematic approaches to assemble datasets from multiple public and proprietary sources, followed by rigorous cleaning protocols to ensure data consistency. Key steps include:

• Multi-source Data Aggregation: Studies typically combine data from public repositories such as Therapeutic Data Commons (TDC), ChEMBL, PubChem BioAssay, and specialized literature curations [5] [60]. For example, recent work on Caco-2 permeability prediction integrated datasets from three independent published studies, resulting in an initial collection of 7,861 compounds before curation [52].

• Systematic Data Cleaning: Implementation of standardized molecular standardization protocols using tools like RDKit's MolStandardize to achieve consistent tautomer canonical states and final neutral forms while preserving stereochemistry [52]. Additional steps include removal of inorganic salts and organometallic compounds, extraction of organic parent compounds from salt forms, and deduplication with consistency checks where conflicting measurements are resolved [5].

• Experimental Protocol Harmonization: For permeability measurements, researchers convert all values to consistent units (cm/s × 10⁻⁶) and apply logarithmic transformations (base 10) for modeling. Duplicate entries are carefully handled by retaining only those with standard deviations ≤ 0.3 and using mean values for model training [52].

Methodologies for Model Training and Evaluation

Consistent evaluation frameworks are essential for meaningful cross-source performance comparisons. Recent studies have converged on several key methodological practices:

• Representation Diversity: Models are typically trained using multiple molecular representations including Morgan fingerprints (radius 2, 1024 bits), RDKit 2D descriptors, and molecular graphs implemented through message-passing neural networks [52]. Some studies additionally explore deep neural network representations and their comparison to classical descriptors and fingerprints [5].

• Algorithm Comparison: Comprehensive validation studies evaluate diverse machine learning algorithms including Random Forests (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), gradient boosting frameworks (XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost), and deep learning approaches (Message Passing Neural Networks, DMPNN, CombinedNet) [5] [52].

• Statistical Validation Framework: Enhanced evaluation methods integrate cross-validation with statistical hypothesis testing, adding a layer of reliability to model assessments. This approach includes Y-randomization tests to verify model robustness and applicability domain analysis to characterize model generalizability [5] [52].

Table 1: Key Experimental Design Elements in Cross-Source Validation Studies

Design Element	Implementation Examples	Purpose
Data Splitting	Scaffold splitting, random splits with multiple seeds	Assess generalization to novel chemotypes
Comparison Methods	RF, XGBoost, SVM, DMPNN, CombinedNet	Identify optimal algorithms for cross-source performance
Molecular Representations	Morgan fingerprints, RDKit 2D descriptors, molecular graphs	Evaluate representation robustness across sources
Statistical Tests	Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Chi-square test, hypothesis testing	Quantify significance of performance differences

Quantitative Benchmarking Results

Rigorous benchmarking studies provide critical insights into how different modeling approaches maintain performance across diverse data sources. Recent comprehensive evaluations reveal several consistent patterns:

• Algorithm Performance Rankings: In cross-source validation scenarios, tree-based ensemble methods frequently demonstrate superior generalization capabilities. For Caco-2 permeability prediction, XGBoost consistently provided better predictions than comparable models when trained on public data and evaluated on internal pharmaceutical industry datasets [52]. Similarly, Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM) has achieved prediction accuracy of 90.33% with AUROC of 97.31% in anticancer ligand prediction, demonstrating robust performance across external test sets [24].

• Performance Retention Metrics: Studies evaluating transferability from public to industry data show that boosting models retain a measurable degree of predictive efficacy, with performance typically declining by variable margins depending on the specific ADMET endpoint and the dissimilarity between training and application chemical spaces [52].

• Impact of Data Cleaning: Systematic data cleaning procedures have been shown to substantially impact cross-source performance. Research indicates that careful curation—including removal of problematic compounds, standardization of representations, and resolution of conflicting measurements—can significantly improve model generalizability across sources [5].

Table 2: Cross-Source Performance Comparison for ADMET Endpoints

ADMET Endpoint	Best Performing Algorithm	Training Data Source	External Test Source	Performance Retention
Caco-2 Permeability	XGBoost	Public datasets (5,654 compounds)	Shanghai Qilu's in-house dataset	Maintained predictive efficacy
Anticancer Ligand Prediction	LightGBM	PubChem BioAssay	Independent test sets	90.33% accuracy, 97.31% AUROC
Multi-task ADMET	Federated Learning Models	Cross-pharma distributed data	New chemical entities	40-60% error reduction

The Impact of Data Heterogeneity on Model Performance

Analysis of public ADME datasets reveals that distributional misalignments and annotation inconsistencies between sources present significant challenges for cross-source validation. A recent study examining half-life and clearance datasets from five different sources identified substantial discrepancies between commonly used benchmark data and gold-standard sources [60]. These inconsistencies arise from variations in experimental conditions, measurement protocols, and chemical space coverage, ultimately introducing noise that degrades model performance when integrating data from multiple sources or applying models to new experimental settings.

The impact of these heterogeneities is quantifiable. Research demonstrates that directly aggregating property datasets without addressing distributional inconsistencies typically decreases predictive performance rather than improving it, highlighting the importance of data consistency assessment prior to modeling [60]. Tools like AssayInspector have been developed specifically to detect these misalignments, providing statistical comparisons of endpoint distributions, identifying outliers and batch effects, and generating insight reports to guide data cleaning and preprocessing decisions [60].

Visualization of Cross-Source Validation Workflows

Experimental Design and Analysis Pipeline

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for designing and executing cross-source validation studies in ADMET prediction:

Data Consistency Assessment Framework

Systematic data consistency assessment is crucial for reliable cross-source validation. The following diagram outlines the key components of this process:

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful cross-source validation requires specialized computational tools and resources. The following table catalogs key solutions employed in rigorous ADMET model validation studies:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Cross-Source Validation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in Cross-Source Validation
AssayInspector	Software Package	Data consistency assessment	Detects distributional misalignments, outliers, and batch effects across datasets [60]
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC)	Data Repository	Standardized benchmarks	Provides curated ADMET datasets for controlled validation studies [5]
RDKit	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Molecular descriptor calculation	Generizes consistent molecular representations across studies [5] [24]
Boruta Algorithm	Feature Selection Method	Relevant feature identification	Identifies statistically important features in high-dimensional datasets [24]
Federated Learning Frameworks	Distributed Learning Approach	Privacy-preserving collaborative training	Enables model training across distributed datasets without centralizing data [2]

Discussion and Future Directions

Interpretation of Key Findings

The collective evidence from recent studies indicates that systematic approaches to data quality assessment are equally—if not more—important than algorithm selection for achieving robust cross-source performance. While tree-based ensemble methods like XGBoost and LightGBM consistently demonstrate strong generalization capabilities, their performance advantages are often contingent on appropriate data cleaning, consistent molecular representation, and careful feature selection [24] [52]. The recurring finding that data heterogeneity significantly impacts model performance underscores the necessity of comprehensive data consistency assessment before attempting cross-source validation [60].

The emerging paradigm of federated learning presents a promising approach to addressing data diversity challenges without compromising data privacy or intellectual property. Recent cross-pharma collaborations have demonstrated that federation systematically extends models' effective domains, achieving 40-60% reductions in prediction error across endpoints including human and mouse liver microsomal clearance, solubility, and permeability [2]. These improvements stem from the expanded chemical space coverage and reduced discontinuities in learned representations that federated approaches enable.

Emerging Methodologies and Future Outlook

Future advances in cross-source validation will likely focus on several key areas. First, the development of more sophisticated applicability domain estimation techniques will help researchers identify when models are likely to succeed or fail on external datasets [46]. Second, the systematic comparison of global versus local models will provide guidance on when dataset-specific models outperform broadly trained ones [46]. Finally, improved uncertainty quantification methods will enable more reliable prediction confidence estimates when models are applied to novel chemical spaces [46].

Initiatives like OpenADMET, which generate high-quality experimental data specifically for model development and validation, will play an increasingly important role in advancing the field [46]. By providing consistently generated data from relevant assays with compounds similar to those used in drug discovery projects, these efforts address the fundamental limitation of current approaches: reliance on heterogeneous data curated from dozens of publications with varying experimental protocols. As these resources become more widely available, we can expect more robust, generalizable ADMET models that maintain predictive performance across diverse external datasets, ultimately accelerating drug discovery and reducing late-stage attrition.

The validation of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) predictions against experimental reality represents a critical frontier in modern drug discovery. Despite significant advances in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI), the true test of predictive models lies in their performance in realistic, prospective scenarios rather than retrospective analyses on historical datasets. Blind challenges have emerged as the gold standard for this validation, providing rigorous, independent assessment of computational methods on unseen experimental data. These community-driven initiatives serve a role analogous to the Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) challenges in structural biology, establishing standardized benchmarks and driving innovation through transparent competition [57] [46].

This comparison guide examines the landscape of recent ADMET challenges, with particular focus on the OpenADMET community initiatives and the DO Challenge benchmark. By analyzing the methodologies, outcomes, and practical implications of these case studies, we provide researchers with a comprehensive framework for evaluating ligand-based ADMET prediction tools and approaches. The insights generated from these challenges are reshaping the field, highlighting both the transformative potential and current limitations of AI-driven methodologies for predicting key pharmacokinetic and toxicity endpoints [61] [62].

Benchmarking Landscape: Major ADMET Challenges and Outcomes

The table below summarizes the key characteristics and findings from recent ADMET benchmarking initiatives:

Table 1: Overview of Recent ADMET Challenges and Benchmarking Initiatives

Challenge Name	Organizers/Platform	Timeline	Key Objectives	Primary Endpoints	Notable Outcomes
ExpansionRx × OpenADMET Blind Challenge	OpenADMET, Expansion Therapeutics, CDD Vault, Hugging Face	Oct 2025 - Jan 2026	Predict ADMET properties for small molecules from RNA-targeted drug discovery campaigns; time-split validation	LogD, Kinetic Solubility, HLM/MLM stability, Caco-2 Papp & Efflux Ratio, Plasma/Brain/Muscle Protein Binding	Ongoing; focuses on real-world lead optimization scenario using historical campaign data [57] [62]
DO Challenge 2025	Deep Origin	2025	Virtual screening benchmark; identify top molecules from 1M compounds with limited label access	DO Score (composite of docking with therapeutic target & ADMET-related proteins)	Top human expert: 77.8% overlap; AI agent (Deep Thought): 33.5% overlap; highlights AI potential but performance gap [61]
PharmaBench Development	Multi-agent LLM data mining	2025	Create comprehensive ADMET benchmark addressing limitations of previous datasets	11 ADMET properties from standardized experimental conditions	52,482 entries; addresses data quality and relevance issues in earlier benchmarks [8]
ASAP x Polaris x OpenADMET Blind Challenge	ASAP Consortium, Polaris, OpenADMET	Not specified	Tackle real-world drug discovery problems across activity, structure prediction, and ADMET endpoints	Multiple ADMET endpoints (specifics not detailed)	Aligns with CASP tradition; focuses on community-driven innovation [57]

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The performance metrics across challenges reveal significant variations in model capabilities:

Table 2: Performance Metrics Across ADMET Challenges and Modeling Approaches

Challenge/Study	Best Performance	Key Methodological Factors	Evaluation Metric	Data Characteristics
DO Challenge (time-unrestricted)	77.8% overlap (human expert)	Active learning, spatial-relational neural networks, non-invariant features	Percentage overlap with actual top 1000 structures	1 million molecular conformations; limited label access (100k) [61]
DO Challenge (AI agent)	33.5% overlap (Deep Thought)	Strategic structure selection, neural network architectures	Percentage overlap with actual top 1000 structures	Same as above; 10-hour time limit [61]
Benchmarking ML in ADMET (feature representation study)	Variable by dataset and representation	Feature selection, cross-validation with statistical testing, data cleaning	Dataset-specific metrics (MAE, RAE, etc.)	Multiple public datasets; emphasis on data quality and standardized conditions [5]
ExpansionRx Challenge (evaluation criteria)	To be determined	Traditional vs. ML approaches; use of external data	Macro-averaged Relative Absolute Error (MA-RAE)	Real-world drug discovery data; time-split validation [62]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Challenge Design and Evaluation Frameworks

ExpansionRx-OpenADMET Blind Challenge Protocol

The ExpansionRx-OpenADMET challenge employs a time-split validation approach that closely mimics real-world drug discovery constraints. Participants are provided with early-stage optimization data and must predict ADMET properties for late-stage molecules from the same campaigns [62]. The experimental workflow encompasses several critical phases:

Diagram 1: ExpansionRx Challenge Workflow

The evaluation methodology employs rigorous statistical testing with bootstrapping to determine significant performance differences between models. The primary evaluation metric is Macro-Averaged Relative Absolute Error (MA-RAE), which normalizes the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) to the dynamic range of test data, enabling comparable assessment across different endpoints. For endpoints not already on a log scale (e.g., LogD), values are transformed to minimize outlier effects [62].

DO Challenge Benchmark Design

The DO Challenge implements a virtual screening scenario where participants must identify top-performing molecular structures from a library of one million compounds while managing limited computational and experimental resources. The benchmark design incorporates several sophisticated elements to simulate real-world constraints [61]:

• Resource Management: Agents can request only 10% of the true DO Score values (100,000 out of 1 million structures) and are limited to 3 submissions for evaluation.
• Composite Scoring: The DO Score integrates docking simulations with one therapeutic target (6G3C) and three ADMET-related proteins (1W0F, 8YXA, 8ZYQ), using logistic regression models based on residue-ligand interactions and docking energies.
• Performance Validation: The benchmark confirmed that the DO Score enriches true binders by 8.41-fold compared to random ranking, establishing a robust foundation for evaluation.

The evaluation metric calculates the percentage overlap between submitted structures and the actual top 1,000 molecules, providing a clear, interpretable measure of virtual screening effectiveness [61].

Data Curation and Preprocessing Standards

High-quality, standardized data forms the foundation of reliable ADMET prediction. Recent benchmarking initiatives have established rigorous data curation protocols:

Diagram 2: ADMET Data Curation Pipeline

The PharmaBench initiative exemplifies modern data curation approaches, employing a multi-agent LLM system to extract experimental conditions from biomedical literature and database entries. This system includes three specialized agents [8]:

• Keyword Extraction Agent (KEA): Identifies and summarizes key experimental conditions for different ADMET assay types.
• Example Forming Agent (EFA): Generates standardized examples based on the experimental conditions identified by KEA.
• Data Mining Agent (DMA): Processes all assay descriptions to extract relevant experimental conditions using few-shot learning.

This automated curation pipeline addresses critical variability factors in ADMET data, such as buffer composition, pH levels, and experimental procedures, which significantly impact measured values for the same compounds across different studies [8].

Key Insights from Challenge Outcomes

Performance-Driving Methodological Factors

Analysis of top-performing approaches across challenges reveals several critical success factors:

• Strategic Structure Selection: Successful implementations employed active learning, clustering, or similarity-based filtering to maximize information gain from limited experimental budgets [61].
• Advanced Neural Architectures: Spatial-relational neural networks (Graph Neural Networks, 3D CNNs, attention-based architectures) consistently outperformed traditional machine learning approaches by better capturing structural relationships [61].
• Position-Sensitive Features: The best-performing solutions utilized features that were not invariant to translation and rotation, preserving critical spatial information in molecular conformations [61].
• Iterative Refinement Strategies: Approaches that strategically leveraged multiple submission opportunities, using outcomes from earlier submissions to refine subsequent predictions, demonstrated significant performance advantages [61].

Limitations and Failure Modes

Despite promising results, benchmarking exercises have revealed consistent limitations in current ADMET prediction methodologies:

• Instruction Comprehension: AI agents frequently misunderstood or ignored critical task instructions, particularly regarding positional sensitivity in molecular representations [61].
• Tool Underutilization: Context window constraints in some language models led to arbitrary code generation rather than effective use of provided computational utilities [61].
• Resource Management Failures: Systems often failed to recognize resource exhaustion, persisting with futile active learning loops beyond allocated label budgets [61].
• Validation Neglect: Agents consistently neglected to reserve resources for essential validation or iterative refinement, prematurely depleting computational budgets [61].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The experimental and computational methodologies employed in ADMET benchmarking rely on specialized tools and resources:

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for ADMET Benchmarking

Resource/Solution	Type	Primary Function	Application in ADMET Challenges
CDD Vault	Data Management Platform	Secure compound and data management; collaboration	Hosting and distribution of challenge datasets [57]
Hugging Face	AI Platform	Dataset hosting, model sharing, and submission portal	Primary platform for challenge data and submissions [57] [62]
RDKit	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Molecular descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation, and cheminformatics operations	Standardized feature generation and molecular representation [5]
Chemprop	Deep Learning Framework	Message Passing Neural Networks for molecular property prediction	Implementation of graph-based neural architectures [5]
Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC)	Benchmarking Platform	Curated ADMET datasets and performance leaderboards	Baseline model development and comparative analysis [5]
PharmaBench	Comprehensive Dataset	Large-scale, standardized ADMET properties from curated public sources	Training and evaluation dataset for model development [8]
Deep Thought	Multi-Agent System	Autonomous problem-solving for scientific challenges	AI-driven approach to virtual screening in DO Challenge [61]

Implications for Ligand-Based ADMET Prediction Research

The collective insights from recent ADMET challenges provide critical guidance for advancing ligand-based prediction research:

Data Quality and Representation

The conventional practice of combining molecular representations without systematic reasoning requires reevaluation. Studies demonstrate that structured approaches to feature selection, coupled with cross-validation and statistical hypothesis testing, significantly enhance model reliability [5]. Furthermore, the integration of multimodal data sources - including molecular structures, pharmacological profiles, and experimental conditions - emerges as a crucial factor in enhancing predictive accuracy and clinical relevance [1].

Algorithm Selection and Optimization

While advanced deep learning architectures show promise, their advantages over carefully optimized traditional methods may be smaller than often assumed, particularly given current dataset sizes and quality levels [46]. Ensemble methods and multi-task learning frameworks demonstrate consistent performance benefits, but require sophisticated implementation to manage computational complexity and avoid overfitting [1] [5].

Validation Paradigms

Time-split validation, as implemented in the ExpansionRx challenge, provides a more realistic assessment of model utility in real-world drug discovery compared to random dataset splits [62]. Prospective validation through blind challenges remains essential for identifying genuinely advanced methodologies versus incremental improvements that may not translate to practical applications [46].

Benchmarking against experimental reality through community challenges has fundamentally advanced the field of ADMET prediction, establishing rigorous standards for model validation and comparison. The case studies examined demonstrate both the significant progress achieved and the substantial challenges remaining in ligand-based ADMET property prediction.

The expansion of high-quality, standardized datasets like PharmaBench, coupled with the methodological insights generated from challenges like ExpansionRx and DO Challenge, provides a robust foundation for continued innovation. As the field progresses, the integration of multimodal data, advanced neural architectures, and rigorous prospective validation will be essential for developing ADMET prediction tools that reliably accelerate drug discovery and reduce late-stage attrition.

The ongoing collaboration between experimental and computational researchers through open science initiatives like OpenADMET ensures that benchmarking efforts will continue to reflect the complex realities of drug discovery, ultimately enhancing the translation of computational predictions to clinically successful therapeutics.

Conclusion

Validating ligand-based ADMET predictions requires an integrated approach that prioritizes data quality, systematic methodology, and rigorous, prospective testing. The convergence of advanced ML architectures with robust validation frameworks, particularly through community-driven blind challenges, marks a transformative shift toward more reliable predictive models. Future progress will depend on collaborative data generation, development of more expressive molecular representations, and enhanced uncertainty quantification methods. By adopting these comprehensive validation strategies, researchers can significantly improve model trustworthiness, accelerate lead optimization, and ultimately reduce clinical-stage attrition, paving the way for more efficient development of safer therapeutics.

References

• 1. Machine learning approaches for next-generation ADMET ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644625002004]
• 2. Federated Learning for ADMET Prediction [https://www.apheris.com/resources/blog/federated-learning-for-admet-prediction-expanding-model-applicability]
• 3. Integrating DMPK Early in Drug Development: A Strategic ... [https://blog.crownbio.com/integrating-dmpk-early-in-drug-development-a-strategic-imperative-for-success]
• 4. Leveraging machine learning models in evaluating ADMET ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40585410/]
• 5. Benchmarking ML in ADMET predictions: the practical impact ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01041-0]
• 6. End to end drug discovery: Revolutionizing 2025 [https://lifebit.ai/blog/end-to-end-drug-discovery/]
• 7. Computational toxicology in drug discovery: applications of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12499773/]
• 8. PharmaBench: Enhancing ADMET benchmarks with large ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-03793-0]
• 9. ADMET-score – a comprehensive scoring function for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6350845/]
• 10. GitHub - DonghaiZHAO-ZJU/Benchmark-ADMET-2025 [https://github.com/DonghaiZHAO-ZJU/Benchmark-ADMET-2025]
• 11. ADMET-AI [https://admet.ai.greenstonebio.com/]
• 12. Advancing ADMET prediction for major CYP450 isoforms: graph-based models, limitations, and future directions | BioMedical Engineering OnLine | Full Text [https://biomedical-engineering-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12938-025-01412-6]
• 13. 8 Essential Data Cleansing Techniques for 2025 [https://truelist.io/blog/data-cleansing-techniques]
• 14. Grammar-driven SMILES standardization with TokenSMILES [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc05004a]
• 15. A method to harmonise and deduplicate study records from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12527485/]
• 16. 8 Essential Data Cleansing Techniques for 2025 [https://osher.com.au/blog/data-cleansing-techniques/]
• 17. Recent advances in molecular representation methods and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00017-2]
• 18. Deep Learning vs Classical Methods in Potency & ADME ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/6908c359ef936fb4a217c384]
• 19. Revolutionizing pharmacology: AI-powered approaches in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259009862500020X]
• 20. Advancing ADMET prediction through multiscale fragment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12478026/]
• 21. Machine with Other ML Algorithms Comparing Gradient Boosting [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/gradient-boosting-vs-other-ml-algorithms]
• 22. Trees Gradient . Boosting vs Random Forests [https://www.baeldung.com/cs/gradient-boosting-trees-vs-random-forests]
• 23. machine learning - Gradient Boosting vs Random forest [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46190046/gradient-boosting-vs-random-forest]
• 24. ACLPred: an explainable machine learning and tree-based ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-16575-4]
• 25. Generative Deep Learning for de Novo Drug Design A ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12308806/]
• 26. Integrating artificial intelligence into small molecule ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00029-y]
• 27. What Can Neural Network Embeddings Do That ... [https://www.deepmedchem.com/articles/what-can-neural-network-embeddings-do]
• 28. Graph neural networks for molecular and materials ... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/jmi.2023.10]
• 29. Could graph neural networks learn better molecular ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-020-00479-8]
• 30. A Comprehensive Comparative Analysis of Deep Learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10529232/]
• 31. Kolmogorov–Arnold graph neural networks for molecular ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-025-01087-7]
• 32. Improving ADME Prediction with Multitask Graph Neural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12606635/]
• 33. On the Scalability of GNNs for Molecular Graphs [https://arxiv.org/html/2404.11568v4]
• 34. Fingerprint-enhanced hierarchical molecular graph neural ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095177925000590]
• 35. ADMET property prediction via multi-task graph learning ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223023623]
• 36. Multitask ADMET Data Splits [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/multitask-admet-data-splits]
• 37. Multitask finetuning and acceleration of chemical ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.12719v1]
• 38. Quantum-Enhanced Multi-Task Learning with Learnable ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.04601v1]
• 39. Leveraging machine learning models in evaluating ADMET ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12205928/]
• 40. cross-pharma studies on federation applied to ADMET [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/apheris_cross-pharma-studies-on-federation-applied-activity-7376895029627330561-yyEo]
• 41. MELLODDY: Cross-pharma Federated Learning at ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11005050/]
• 42. MolP-PC: a multi-view fusion and multi-task learning ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875536425609459?dgcid=rss_sd_all]
• 43. Feature Selection Techniques: A Comprehensive Guide for ... [https://medium.com/@abhijha3011/feature-selection-techniques-a-comprehensive-guide-for-supervised-learning-ed139281c0f5]
• 44. Feature Selection in Machine Learning [https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2020/10/feature-selection-techniques-in-machine-learning/]
• 45. Benchmarking ML in ADMET predictions: the practical ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40691635/]
• 46. Time For a New Adventure - Practical Cheminformatics [https://patwalters.github.io/Time-For-a-New-Adventure/]
• 47. structure-based prediction and optimization tool for ligand ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/dd/d3dd00194f]
• 48. Advanced ADMET Modeling Using Deep Learning and AI [https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/blog/beyond-black-box-models-advances-in-data-driven-admet-modeling-403114]
• 49. Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9293739/]
• 50. Predictive ADMET studies, the challenges and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136759310400081X]
• 51. A New Method for the Rapid Generation of Novel Scaffold ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5601232/]
• 52. ADMET evaluation in drug discovery: 21. Application and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11724520/]
• 53. From molecules to scaffolds to functional groups [https://arxiv.org/html/2311.02798v2]
• 54. Conditional Latent Space Molecular Scaffold Optimization ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2411.01423v2]
• 55. Benchmarking ML in ADMET predictions: the practical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12281724/]
• 56. OMSF — OpenADMET [https://omsf.io/programs/projects/openadmet/]
• 57. Blind Challenges [https://openadmet.org/community/events/blind-challenges/]
• 58. The ExpansionRx-OpenADMET Blind Challenge [https://huggingface.co/blog/hugging-science/the-expansionrx-openadmet-blind-challenge]
• 59. ExpansionRx–OpenADMET Blind Challenge [https://www.collaborativedrug.com/expansionrx-openadmet-blind-challenge-announcement-webinar]
• 60. Enhancing molecular property prediction through data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12574261/]
• 61. Benchmarking and Development of AI-Based Agentic ... [https://deeporigin.com/blog/benchmarking-and-development-of-ai-based-agentic-systems-for-autonomous-drug-discovery]
• 62. Announcement 2: ExpansionRx - OpenADMET Blind Challenge [https://openadmet.ghost.io/openadmet-expansionrx-blind-challenge/]