Predicting Drug-Induced Liver Injury with Bayesian Machine Learning
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- 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
- Licence
- 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