Cited by 124Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionComputational Drug Discovery MethodsAnimal testing and alternatives

Predicting Drug-Induced Liver Injury with Bayesian Machine Learning

Williams, Dominic P., Lazic, Stanley E., Foster, Alison J., Semenova, Elizaveta, Morgan, Paul·2020·Chemical Research in Toxicology

Abstract

Drug induced liver injury (DILI) can require significant risk management in drug development and on occasion can cause morbidity or mortality, leading to drug attrition. Optimizing candidates preclinically can minimize hepatotoxicity risk, but it is difficult to predict due to multiple etiologies encompassing DILI, often with multifactorial and overlapping mechanisms. In addition to epidemiological risk factors, physicochemical properties, dose, disposition, lipophilicity, and hepatic metabolic function are also relevant for DILI risk. Better human-relevant, predictive models are required to improve hepatotoxicity risk assessment in drug discovery. Our hypothesis is that integrating mechanistically relevant hepatic safety assays with Bayesian machine learning will improve hepatic safety risk prediction. We present a quantitative and mechanistic risk assessment for candidate nomination using data from in vitro assays (hepatic spheroids, BSEP, mitochondrial toxicity, and bioactivation), together with physicochemical (cLogP) and exposure (Cmax total ) variables from a chemically diverse compound set (33 no/low-, 40 medium-, and 23 high-severity DILI compounds). The Bayesian model predicts the continuous underlying DILI severity and uses a data-driven prior distribution over the parameters to prevent overfitting. The model quantifies the probability that a compound falls into either no/low-, medium-, or high-severity categories, with a balanced accuracy of 63% on held-out samples, and a continuous prediction of DILI severity along with uncertainty in the prediction. For a binary yes/no DILI prediction, the model has a balanced accuracy of 86%, a sensitivity of 87%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 92%, and a negative predictive value of 78%. Combining physiologically relevant assays, improved alignment with FDA recommendations, and optimal statistical integration of assay data leads to improved DILI risk prediction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.9b00264

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 124

Authors
Williams, D. P., Lazic, S. E., Foster, A. J., Semenova, E., & Morgan, P.
Affiliations
AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Williams, Dominic P.
Venue
Chemical Research in Toxicology
Published
2019-09-19
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
239-248
ISSN
  • 0893-228X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5010
OpenAlex
W2974029770
Cited by
124
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 1
FWCI
13.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Chemical Research in Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
Keywords
drug-induced liver injury, hepatotoxicity prediction, Bayesian learning, bile salt export pump, mitochondrial toxicity, metabolic activation, physicochemical properties, ClogP, Cmax, drug attrition, preclinical safety, uncertainty quantification
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Member 11, THP-1 Cells, Drug Development, Bayes Theorem, Cell Survival, Humans, Mitochondria, Risk Assessment, Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury, Hep G2 Cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review