ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Rule Violations for Drug-Likeness Assessment in Peptide Molecules Using Random Forest Models.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peptide therapeutics often fall outside classical small-molecule heuristics, such as Lipinski's Rule of Five (Ro5), motivating the development of adapted filters and data-driven approaches to early drug-likeness assessment. We curated >300 k drug (small and peptide) and non-drug molecules from PubChem, extracted key molecular descriptors with RDKit, and generated three rule-violation counters for Ro5, the peptide-oriented beyond-Ro5 (bRo5) extension, and Muegge's criteria. Random Forest (RF) classifier and regressor models (with 10, 20, and 30 trees) were trained and evaluated. Predictions for 26 peptide test molecules were compared with those from SwissADME, Molinspiration, and manual calculations. Model metrics were uniformly high (Ro5 accuracy/precision/recall = 1.0; Muegge ≈ 0.99), indicating effective learning. Ro5 violation counts matched reference values for 23/26 peptides; the remaining cases differed by +1 violation, reflecting larger structures and platform limits. bRo5 predictions showed near-complete agreement with manual values; minor discrepancies occurred in isolated peptides. Muegge's predictions were internally consistent but tended to underestimate SwissADME by ~1 violation in several molecules. Four peptides (ML13-16) satisfied bRo5 boundaries; three also fully met Ro5. RF models thus provide fast and reliable in silico filters for peptide drug-likeness and can support the prioritisation of orally developable candidates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.