Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5884_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
21 Мб
Скачать
60 G. M. Ferreira et al.
Autonomy, as one of these principles, underscores the importance of securing free and informed consent from all individuals involved. However, it is crucial to ensure that autonomy is genuinely free, without defects in consent or omission of information, which includes addressing issues related to personal vulnerability.
The principles of nonmalecence and benecence emphasize a commitment to improving the quality of life and treatment efcacy while minimizing side effects for both individual patients and the broader population. This commitment rejects med­ical approaches based on trial and errormethods, prioritizing patient well-being and safety above all else, as highlighted by Brito et al. [50]. The principle of nonmalecence, which originates from the Hippocratic oath whose motto is primum non nocere,meaning first, do not cause damage,keeps a direct connec­tion with the essential objectives of pharmacogenomics, which strives to reach such goals, considering that its fundamental purpose is to improve humanitys quality of life [50].
In the realm of bioethics, Marcelo Quentin sheds light on the foundational principle of benecence, emphasizing its pivotal role in promoting the well-being of individuals, particularly those who are ill. According to Quentin, benecence entails a profound acknowledgment of the moral worth of others, driving healthcare professionals and society at large to prioritize the prevention of harm and the enhancement of wellness. This principle compels individuals to meticulously eval­uate the potential risks and benets associated with medical interventions, striving to maximize the benets for patients while minimizing any potential harm. Further­more, benecence encompasses the complementary principle of nonmalecence, which underscores the imperative of avoiding actions that may cause harm to the patient. In essence, Quentins perspective underscores the dual nature of ethical considerations, emphasizing the imperative of balancing benevolence with the obligation to do no harm [51].
Exploring the principle of justice unveils a complex sphere entangled with social, political, and economic dynamics, particula rly poignant in the context of developing countries. Here, tests and treatments linked to genetic data remain prohibitively expensive, rendering them accessible only to a privileged minority. Remarkably, the principle of justice emerges as the most intricate in this landscape. The prevailing economic interests of pharmaceutical giants often prioritize prot maximization over addressing illnesses affecting marginalized populations, particularly those deemed unprotable or lacking potential returns to the system. As noted, treatments for rare diseases, categorized as orphan medications,are sidelined due to their low prof­itability and lack of investment appeal. Consequently, pharmacogenomics might inadvertently perpetuate a discriminatory environment, disproportionately excluding certain social groups, particularly in nations where genetic testing remains nan­cially out of reach for a signicant portion of the populace. This predicament poses a formidable challenge and threatens to undermine the principle of justice in its entirety.
On the ip side, as underscored by Jorge Alberto Iriart, the emergence of precision medicine unfolds within the intricate framework of globalized capitalism, characterized by what Rose terms economies of vitality.This concept delineates a
3 A Brief Introduction to Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine in... 61
novel economic domain, known as bioeconomics, wherein biocorporations wield control over lives, thereby generating value. In this context, the manipulation of biological data and healthcare interventions becomes instrumental in the accumula­tion of a distinct form of capital known as biocapital. This perspective sheds light on the intersection of political and economic forces shaping the trajectory of precision medicine, highlighting the profound inuence of capitalist dynamics on the healthcare landscape [52].
In simpler terms, pharmacogenomics emerges as a promising solution to fortify basic and preventive healthcare, potentially slashing costs linked with ineffective treatments. This perspective holds merit, provided concerns about the affordability and accessibility of genetic tests for marginalized social groups are adequately tackled. Nevertheless, within this context, it is cruci al to acknowledge two branches of the principle of justice: one of utilitarian nature, striving to maximize benets for both patients and society and another of egalitarian ethos, dedicated to ensuring equal value for individuals and equitable opportunities [53].
Based on this premise, compliance with the bioethical principle of justice is intrinsically connected to the guarantee of egalitarian access and fair opportunities to all citizens as regarding treatment.
In addition to the bioethical aspect of the matter, the legal aspect is associated to two fundamental pillars: (i) the patients consent regarding the purpose, use, and disposal of data, and (ii) guaranteed protection of such data against leaks, with specic and clear guidelines regarding disposal there of. Each country, considering their legal and regulatory structure in connection with medical secrecy, data protec­tion, and patients informed consent, should consider the particularities of such collections in implementing public policies that regulate the matter.
Genetic data are already collected for miscellaneous purposes worldwide, espe­cially to map genetic diseases at birth, such as the newborn blood spot test. However, the manner in which such data are collected, stored, and protected is crucial to avoid breaches of various natures. Thus, the public power is accountable for guaranteeing safety in the collection, storage, and use of such genetic data.
Hence, pharmacogenomics represents a signicant advancement in the healthcare area. Nevertheless, its ethical and legal application faces complex challenges that go beyond medicine, involving social, economic, ethical, and legal matters. To guar­antee a safe society from the bioethical and legal standpoint, it is essential that law and bioethics continuously evolve to follow up technological development and establish solid criteria. This includes the protection of sensitive genetic data, com­pliance with fundamental bioethical principles, such as autonomy, nonmalecence, benecence, and justice, and the promotion of egalitarian access to treatments. Moreover, considering the safety and privacy of the genetic data is of the essence to guarantee that use thereof is consented to and does not breach the fundamental principles of human dignity. Ultimately, ethics and bioethics play a core role in providing guidance to such complex matters, promoting a fairer and safer society.
62 G. M. Ferreira et al.
Questions to answer when planning genomics and personalized medicine in drug
design studies?
What is the genomic basis of the disease? What are the target genes and pathways? How do genetic variations affect drug response? What are the biomarkers for disease and drug response? How can genomics inform drug discovery and development? What are the ethical, legal, and social implications? What technologies and methodologies are required? How can personalized medicine be integrated into clinical practice? What are the challenges and limitations? How to ensure collaboration among stakeholders?

References

1. Dere, W. H., & Suto, T. S. (2009). The role of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in improving translational medicine. Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism, 6,13–16.
2. Bienfait, K., et al. (2022). Current challenges and opportunities for pharmacogenomics: Per­spective of the industry pharmacogenomics working group (I-PWG). Human Genetics, 141, 1165–1173.
3. Ramayanam, N. R., Amarnath, R. N., & Vijayakumar, T. M. (2022). Pharmacogenetic bio­markers and personalized medicine: Upcoming concept in pharmacotherapy. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, 15, 4289–4292.
4. Castro, K. M., Scheck, A., Xiao, S., & Correia, B. E. (2022). Computational design of vaccine immunogens. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 78, 102821.
5. Gourlay, L., Peri, C., Bolognesi, M., & Colombo, G. (2017). Structure and computation in immunoreagent design: From diagnostics to vaccines. Trends in Biotechnology, 35(12), 1208–1220.
6. Pak, M. A., Markhieva, K. A., Novikova, M. S., Petrov, D. S., Vorobyev, I. S., Maksimova, E. S., et al. (2023). Using AlphaFold to predict the impact of single mutations on protein stability and function. PLoS One, 18(3), e0282689.
7. Modeling mutations in protein structures – Feyfant – 2007 – Protein Science – Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1110/ps.072855507.
8. Pandurangan, A. P., & Blundell, T. L. (2020). Prediction of impacts of mutations on protein structure and interactions: SDM, a statistical approach, and mCSM, using machine learning. Protein Science, 29, 247–257.
9. Zhou, Y., Tremmel, R., Schaeffeler, E., Schwab, M., & Lauschke, V. M. (2022). Challenges and opportunities associated with rare-variant pharmacogenomics. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 43, 852–865.
10. Schreeck, F., Ahne, G., Tremmel, R., Schaeffeler, E., & Schwab, M. (2022). Pharmaco­genomics in pediatric medicine and drug development. Pharmacogenomics, 23, 709–712.
11. Schwab, M., & Schaeffeler, E. (2012). Pharmacogenomics: A key component of personalized therapy. Genome Medicine, 4,1–3.
12. Moore, T. J., Heyward, J., Anderson, G., & Alexander, G. C. (2020). Variation in the estimated costs of pivotal clinical benet trials supporting the US approval of new therapeutic agents, 2015–2017: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 10, e038863.
13. Sun, D., Gao, W., Hu, H., & Zhou, S. (2022). Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve it? Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B, 12, 3049–3062.
3 A Brief Introduction to Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine in... 63
14. Coleman, J. J., & Pontefract, S. K. (2016). Adverse drug reactions. Clinical Medicine, 16, 481–485.
15. Insani, W. N., et al. (2021). Prevalence of adverse drug reactions in the primary care setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 16, e0252161.
16. Ray, S. (2014). Clopidogrel resistance: The way forward. Indian Heart Journal, 66, 530–534.
17. Yin, O., & Vandell, A. (2019). Incorporating pharmacogenomics in drug development. In Pharmacogenomics (pp. 81–101). Elsevier.
18. Vogel, F. (1959). Moderne Problem Der. Humangenetik, 12.
19. Lander, E. S., et al. (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409, 860–921.
20. Kandi, V., & Vadakedath, S. (2023). Clinical trials and clinical research: A comprehensive review. Cureus, 15, e35077.
21. Cappuzzo, F., et al. (2005). Epidermal growth factor receptor gene and Protein and Getinib sensitivity in non–small-cell lung cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 97, 643–655.
22. Hirsch, F. R., et al. (2006). Molecular predictors of outcome with Getinib in a phase III placebo-controlled study in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncol- ogy, 24, 5034–5042.
23. Singh, B., Jain, P., Devaraja, K., & Aggarwal, S. (2023). Chapter 3: Pharmacogenomics in drug discovery and development. In S. A. Ganie, A. Ali, M. U. Rehman, & A. Arafah (Eds.), Pharmacogenomics (pp. 57–96). Academic.
24. Menden, M. P., et al. (2013). Machine learning prediction of cancer cell sensitivity to drugs based on genomic and chemical properties. PLoS One, 8, e61318.
25. Lee, K. H., et al. (2016). Genome sequence variability predicts drug precautions and with­drawals from the market. PLoS One, 11, e0162135.
26. Dugger, S. A., Platt, A., & Goldstein, D. B. (2018). Drug development in the era of precision medicine. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 17, 183–196.
27. Spreaco, R., Soriaga, L. B., Grosse, J., Virgin, H. W., & Telenti, A. (2020). Advances in genomics for drug development. Genes, 11, 942.
28. Chan, Y.-T., et al. (2022). CRISPR-Cas9 library screening approach for anti-cancer drug discovery: Overview and perspectives. Theranostics, 12, 3329–3344.
29. Spahn, S., Kleinhenz, F., Shevchenko, E., et al. (2024). The molecular interaction pattern of lenvatinib enables inhibition of wild-type or kinase-mutated FGFR2-driven cholangiocarcinoma. Nature Communications, 15, 1287.
30. Emilien, G., Ponchon, M., Caldas, C., & Isacson, O. Impact of genomics on drug discovery and clinical medicine. QJM.
31. Conejero-Muriel, M., Contreras-Montoya, R., Díaz-Mochón, J. J., de Cienfuegos, L. Á., & Gavira, J. A. (2015). Protein crystallization in short-peptide supramolecular hydrogels: A versatile strategy towards biotechnological composite materials. CrystEngComm, 17,
–8078.
8072
32. Patowary, A., et al. (2012). Systematic analysis and functional annotation of variations in the genome of an Indian individual. Human Mutation, 33, 1133–1140.
33. Tyukavin, A. I., et al. (2021). Biodizine as a civilizational challenge of modern pharmaceuticals. Pharmacy Formulations, 3, 108–117.
34. Barrot, C.-C., Woillard, J.-B., & Picard, N. (2019). Big data in pharmacogenomics: Current applications, perspectives and pitfalls. Pharmacogenomics, 20, 609–620.
35. Low, S.-K., Takahashi, A., Mushiroda, T., & Kubo, M. (2014). Genome-wide association study: A useful tool to identify common genetic variants associated with drug toxicity and efcacy in cancer pharmacogenomics. Clinical Cancer Research, 20, 2541–2552.
36. Angelbello, A. J., et al. (2018). Using genome sequence to enable the design of medicines and chemical probes. Chemical Reviews, 118, 1599–1663.
37. Tsourounis, M., Stuart, J., Pignato, W., Toscani, M., & Barone, J. (2015). Current trends in personalized medicine and companion diagnostics: A summary from the DIA meeting on
64 G. M. Ferreira et al.
personalized medicine and companion diagnostics. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 49, 530–543.
38. Madian, A. G., Wheeler, H. E., Jones, R. B., & Dolan, M. E. (2012). Relating human genetic variation to variation in drug responses. Trend in Genetics, 28, 487–495.
39. Cheung, N. Y. C., et al. (2021). Perception of personalized medicine, pharmacogenomics, and genetic testing among undergraduates in Hong Kong. Human Genomics, 15, 54.
40. Abrahams, E., Ginsburg, G. S., & Silver, M. (2005). The personalized medicine coalition: Goals and strategies. American Journal of Pharmacogenomics : Genomics-Related Research in Drug Development and Clinical Practice, 5, 345–355.
41. Prainsack, B., Naue, U. Relocating health governance: personalized medicine in times of global genes. Personalized Medicine, 3, 349–355.
42. Gershon, E. S., Alliey-Rodriguez, N., & Grennan, K. (2014). Ethical and public policy challenges for pharmacogenomics. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 16, 567–574.
43. Mattevi, V. S., & Tagliari, C. F. (2017). Pharmacogenetic considerations in the treatment of HIV. Pharmacogenomics, 18,85–98.
44. Rodríguez Duque, R., & Miguel Soca, P. E. (2020). Farmacogenómica: principios y aplicaciones en la práctica médica. Revista Habanera de Ciencias Médicas, e3128.
45. Abbagnano, N. (2007). Dicionário de Filosoa (5th ed). Ed. Martins Fontes.
46. Sgreccia, E. (1996). Manual de bioética: fundamentos e ética biomédica. In Manual de bioética: fundamentos e ética biomédica (pp. 686–686).
47. Beauchamp, T. L.; Childress, J. F. (2013) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
48. Ferrer, J. J., & Álvarez, J. C. (2005). Para fundamentar a bioética: teorias e paradigmas teóricos na bioética contemporânea. Edicoes Loyola.
49. Suarez-Kurtz, G. (2018). Pharmacogenetic testing in oncology: A Brazilian perspective. Clinics (Sao Paulo), 73, e565s.
50. Ruiz-Hornillos, J., et al. (2021). Bioethical concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic: What did healthcare ethics committees and institutions state in Spain? Frontiers in Public Health, 9,
737755.
51. Brito, M. (2015). A farmacogenética e a medicina personalizada. Saúde e Tecnologia, 14, 5–10.
52. Ortolan, A., et al. (2021). The genetic contribution to drug response in Spondyloarthritis: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Genetics, 12, 703911.
53. Iriart, J. A. B. (2019). Medicina de precisão/medicina personalizada: análise crítica dos movimentos de transformação da biomedicina no início do século XXI. Cadernos De Saude Publica, 35, e00153118.
Chapter 4
Machine Learning and Neural Network Methods Applied to Drug Discovery
Daniel S. de Sousa, Aldineia P. da Silva, Rafaela M. de Angelo, Laise P. A. Chiari, Kathia M. Honorio, and Albérico B. F. da Silva
Abstract Throughout this chapter, we will explore how machine learning and
neural networks are shaping the evolution of drug design, its fundamental applica­tions, limitations, and the challenges that still need to be overcome. The revolution­ary potential of this approach promises to conti nue contributing to the discovery of new therapies and advancing pharmaceutical science.
Keywords Machine learning · Drug design · Applications · Neural networks

1 Historical Background

The use of machine learning (ML ) in the eld of drug discovery represents a revolutionary approach that has profoundly transformed how scientists and researchers approach the development of new therapeutic compounds. Throughout history, the eld of drug design has faced numerous challenges in identifying and optimizing molecules capable of treating diseases effectively, safely, and efciently. However, the advent of ML has brought new perspectives and remarkable advances. Historically, the drug design process has predominantly relied on trial-and-error approaches, with scientists conducting exhaustive experiments to identify com­pounds with desirable properties [1]. Nevertheless, the increasing availability of data and the growing computational processing power have opened new possibilities for the application of ML algorithms [2]. Notable examples of this evolution include the use of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR), which has enabled
D. S. de Sousa · L. P. A. Chiari · A. B. F. da Silva () São Carlos Institute of Chemistry, University of São Paulo, São Carlos, SP, Brazil e-mail: alberico@iqsc.usp.br
A. P. da Silva · K. M. Honorio School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
R. M. de Angelo Center for Natural Sciences and Humanities, Federal University of ABC, Santo André, SP, Brazil
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 V. G. Maltarollo (ed.), Computer-Aided and Machine Learning-Driven Drug Design, Computer-Aided Drug Discovery and Design 3,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-76718-0_4
65
66 D. S. de Sousa et al.
the prediction of biological activities based on the molecular structure, and the application of deep learning algorithms, such as neural networks, which have enhanced the ability to identify complex patterns in extensive data sets [3]. For more details on QSAR, see Chap. 6.
This transformation has signicantly impacted applications in drug design. ML is now widely employed to expedite the identication of drug candidates, optimize the structure of existing molecules, and predict potential side effects, resulting in a more efcient and economically advantageous process. Furthermore, the capability to construct models of interactions between compounds and biological targets has improved the understanding of drug mechanisms, unveiling new perspectives for therapeutic development [13].
However, despite its notable achievements, the application of ML in drug design faces critical challenges and limitations. The need for high-quality and reliable data, which is not always readily available, is one of these barriers. Additionally, ML modelsinterpretability and domain expertises incorporation remain ongoing chal­lenges. Ensuring the safety and efcacy of drug candidates identied by ML algorithms is also essential [4 , 5]. For more details on the application of ML models, see Chap. 6.
The history of ML and neural network development has been marked by numer­ous peaks and vall eys, woven with both triumphs and setbacks over its expansive chronology. Currently, our primary focus does not involve an in-depth exploration of the historical context. Instead, our goal is centered on encapsulating this narrative concerning medicinal chemistry, highlighting key events involving ML that have been impactful in drug discovery and its evolution.
1.1 Timeline
Before we embark on the application of ML into our eld of expertise, it is essential to trace its historical evolution. The initial concepts of ML emerged in 1943, albeit not in the concrete ML form we know today. Instead, these nascent ideas originated from an endeavor to understand the workings of neurons. It was the neurophysiol­ogist Warren McCull och and the mathematician Walter Pitts who ventured into creating a simplied neural network using electrical circuits [6]. Intriguingly, this development predated the advent of the rst electronic digital computer, ENIAC, in 1946 [7]. This highlights that the quest for creating articial intelligence (AI) has deep historical roots, evolving alongside the nascent eld of computer science.
The initial connection between arti cial intelligence (AI) and computers was established in 1950 when the mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing introduced a test to evaluate a machines capacity to exhibit human-like intelligence, known as Turing test[8]. However, the term machine learningonly entered the lexicon in 1952, coined by computer scientist Arthur Samuel, a pioneer in the eld [9]. Samuel developed a program capable of playing checkers at a championship level, utilizing an algorithm called alpha-beta pruning.Nonetheless, it is worth
4 Machine Learning and Neural Network Methods Applied to Drug Discovery 67
noting that while situated within the realm of articial intelligence, this program did not involve the process of learning from data [10].
The rst authentic ML algorithm emerged in 1957, courtesy of the psychologist Frank Rosenblatt. This algorithm marked the prototype of Articial Neural Network (ANN) and was named the perceptron,a single-layer neural network [11]. Subse­quently, a plethora of other methods were conceived, including the Nearest Neigh­bor Algorithm (1967), paving the way for the diverse methods that are encountered today [ 12].
With the advent of ML techniques, numerous elds of knowledge have been embraced and enriched. For instance, the vast domain of chemistry witnessed signicant advancements with the introduction of the Dendral system, developed by Edward Feigenbaum and Joshua Lederberg in 1965. This innovative system’s primary objective was to elucidate the chemical structures of compounds by intri­cately interpreting spectrographic data [13]. In the eld of drug discovery, ML made its initial foray in the 1990s, and its applications have proliferated in the 2000s up to the present day [35, 1418].
A signicant milestone in the history of ML in drug design was the introduction of the drug-likenessconcept in 1998 by Ajay et al. Their model was designed to predict with high accuracy whether a molecule could be categorized as a drug or not, employing Bayesian neural network algorithms [19]. In the ensuing years, during the 2000s, the creation of new methods, such as Random Forest, and the popularization of other ML techniques like SVM, decision trees, and Naive Bayes, among others, along with the increasing availability of data, led to the development of various strategies to enhance the drug disco very process [1416, 20].
In the same decade, the rst substantial databases were established, including ZINC and PubChem (2004) [21, 22]. This was followed by the creation of DrugBank in 2006 [23] and ChEMBL in 2008 [20, 24]. However, signi cant advances in the eld of drug discovery only materialized in more recent times. In 2015, Atomwise introduced AtomNet, the pioneering deep learning neural network for structure-based drug design, utilizing three-dimensional representations of chem­ical interactions. The system identied chemical features like aromaticity, sp carbons, and hydrogen bonding, akin to how image recognition networks compre­hend spatially proximate features. AtomNet subsequently played notable importance in predicting novel candidate biomolecules for various disease targets, notably contributing to treatments for the Ebola virus and multiple sclerosis [25]. The culmination of progress in the eld occurred in 2020, marked by two notable events: the discovery of halicin, an antibiotic [26] through deep learning models, and the introduction of the rst planned machine learning drug candidate for the treatment of cancer and cardiovascular disease into preclinical testing [27]. Figure 4.1 illustrates the chronological progression of ML in the eld of drug discovery, depicting key milestones.
3
68 D. S. de Sousa et al.
1965
1957
Fig. 4.1 Timeline with some events within the eld of machine learning since its inception (yellow), spanning from chemistry (green) to drug discovery (purple)
1998
2000s
2006
2004
2008
2015
2020

2 Methodology Overview

ML is a fundamental branch of knowledge within the eld of AI that stands out for its ability to enable computational systems to learn and improve from data, rather than being explicitly programmed. While AI encompasses a wide spectrum of techniques and approaches aimed at endowing machines with human-like intelli­gence and behavior, ML focuses on a systems capacity to acquire knowledge and enhance its performance through data analysis, pattern recognition, and continuous adaptation. This sets ML apart from traditional programming approaches, allowing autonomous systems and algorithms to make decisions and perform tasks indepen­dently based on past experiences [2832].
Within the realm of ML, Neural Networks (NNs) assume a fundamental role. These computational models utilize interconnected layers of articial neurons to analyze and recognize intricate patterns within data. NNs can be both shallow, with few layers, or deep, incorporating multiple layers, giving rise to what is known as Deep Learning (DL). As a specialized branch of ML , DL, places particular emphasis on employing deep neural networks to address complex tasks, such as image and speech recognition, natural language processing, and more [3038]. This hierarchy of concepts illustrates the progressive depth and specialization that occurs withi n the broader domain of AI, as illustrated in Fig. 4.2.
In medicinal chemistry, numerous ML algorithms are essential for addressing diverse needs related to drug discovery. They are integral in tasks ranging from
4 Machine Learning and Neural Network Methods Applied to Drug Discovery 69
Fig. 4.2 Schematic representation of the hierarchy of concepts in the scope of articial intelligence to deep learning
target identication to the optimization of clinical trials. Broadly, ML methods can be categorized into two major groups: supervised learning and unsupervised learning [14].
In supervised learning methods, algorithms are trained on labeled data sets where the relationship between inputs and outputs is known. This enables the prediction or classication of new data based on prior learning. On the other hand, unsupervised learning methods explore underlying structures in the data, either by grouping them into clusters or by reducing dimensionality. These methods are important for uncovering insights and patterns in unlabeled data, facilitating data segmentation into similar groups, and simplifying the representation of complex data [32, 35, 36,
39].
Furthermore, these methods can be combined to give rise to other approaches, such as semi-supervised learning and reinforcement learning. These approaches offer versatile solutions for a wide range of data sets, leveraging the strengths of both supervised and unsupervised learning paradigms. Semi-supervised learning, for instance, utilizes a combination of labeled and unlabeled data, capitalizing on the benets of limited labeled information and the vastness of unlabeled data. On the other hand, reinforcement learning introduces a dynamic element by allowing models to learn through interaction with an environment, receiving feedback in the form of rewards or penalties to rene their decision-making processes. This amal­gamation of methods contributes to the versatility and efcacy of ML applications in various domains, including drug discovery [14, 30, 32, 39].
The purpose of this chapter is not to delve into the detailed principles of operation for all methods, but rather to provide an overview of the broader context within the eld of drug discovery, focusing on the commonly used ML methods for this purpose. Figure 4.3 presents the main ML algorithms employed in various drug design applications.