Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42196328›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2026

A Risk-Tiered Validation Framework for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery: From Reproducibility to Clinical Translation.

Sarfaraz K Niazi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sarfaraz K NiaziCollege of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Washington State University, Spokane, WA 99202, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0513-0336

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence has advanced from merely predicting static protein structures to modeling equilibrium conformational ensembles. It now concurrently forecasts structure and binding affinity and actively participates in candidate selection during the initial stages of drug discovery. Foundation models introduced between 2024 and 2026, including BioEmu, AlphaFlow, DiG, Boltz-2, Chai-1, NeuralPLexer, and explicit-solvent prediction systems such as SuperWater, have begun to address issues previously identified as fundamental concerns in earlier critiques of AI in drug discovery. Nevertheless, many of these models are presently accessible only as preprints and require validation through independent peer review. Evidence indicates a shift in the primary bottleneck from representation challenges to validation difficulties. However, this transition remains incomplete and heavily dependent on context. The risks associated with AI-enabled drug discovery are increasingly not solely about the models' capacity to accurately represent ensembles, but also about whether the evidentiary standards used to validate AI-derived predictions keep pace with the rapidity with which these predictions are generated and employed. This article introduces a four-tier validation framework designed to align the extent of computational and experimental evidence with the translational and regulatory risks associated with various artificial intelligence (AI) applications within the molecular sciences. These applications include machine learning (ML) models that analyze sequences, structures, conformational ensembles, protein-ligand complexes, and molecular dynamics trajectories. Tier 1 addresses the internal reproducibility of ML inference when applied to molecular inputs; Tier 2 pertains to the robustness of molecular-science benchmarks such as CASP, CASF-2016, PoseBusters, and OpenFE; Tier 3 involves prospective experimental validation against biophysical and biochemical measurements; and Tier 4 encompasses clinical and translational calibration within physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) and quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) frameworks. This validation hierarchy functions as an explicit conceptual guide, serving as a framework rather than a regulatory requirement. It is firmly grounded in established principles derived from ICH Q8/Q9/Q10, the FDA model-informed drug development (MIDD) approach, the EMA reflection paper on AI in the medicinal product lifecycle, and the EU AI Act. The manuscript further incorporates recent evidence from ensemble-aware AI, prospective docking, free-energy campaigns, and clinical-stage AI-derived candidates. It concludes with specific recommendations pertaining to lifecycle governance, uncertainty reporting, and the adoption of harmonized evidentiary templates for AI/ML applications in the molecular sciences.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDrug DiscoveryHumansMachine LearningReproducibility of Resultsartificial intelligencecomputational chemistrydrug discoveryensemble predictionlifecycle governancemachine learningmodel-informed drug developmentmolecular dynamicsmolecular sciencesprotein–ligand predictionregulatory scienceuncertainty quantificationvalidation

Identifiers

PMID42196328
PMCPMC13207417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.