Benchmarking web-based in-silico toxicity prediction tools using gold-standard datasets across five key endpoints

In silico toxicity prediction tools have become indispensable in early drug development for assessing safety risks. However, their reported predictive performance is rarely evaluated against independent experimental datasets. In this study, we systematically benchmark four widely used free, web-based toxicity predictors– ProTox, pkCSM, ADMETLab, and vNN-ADMET across experimentally validated hepatotoxicity, cardiotoxicity (hERG inhibition), nephrotoxicity, blood–brain barrier (BBB) permeability, and mutagenicity (AMES) endpoints using gold-standard datasets, including DILIrank, hERG Central, DIRIL, B3DB, and the ISSTOX Chemical Toxicity database. Tool-reported endpoint-specific performance metrics were first analyzed and subsequently compared against externally benchmarked predictions generated on independent compound sets. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, specificity, and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC). Our results reveal pronounced discrepancies between tool-reported and benchmarked performance across multiple endpoints, indicating limited generalizability of several models beyond their original training and validation domains. While ProTox and vNN-ADMET demonstrated strong reported performance across endpoints, only mutagenicity predictions remained consistently robust under benchmarking conditions (F1 > 0.89; MCC > 0.80). ProTox achieved the highest benchmarked performance for hepatotoxicity (F1 = 0.92; MCC = 0.84), whereas ADMETLab showed balanced recall-driven performance for nephrotoxicity and cardiotoxicity but exhibited reduced specificity for hepatotoxicity, suggesting overprediction. In contrast, BBB permeability and nephrotoxicity emerged as the most challenging endpoints, with substantial performance degradation relative to reported metrics and consistently low MCC values across tools. Overall, no single tool demonstrated uniform reliability across all toxicity endpoints when evaluated on independent datasets. These findings underscore the limitations of relying solely on tool reported performance and highlight the necessity of endpoint aware benchmarking in in-silico toxicity screening. This study provides actionable guidance for tool selection in early drug discovery and supports future development of ensemble and applicability domain aware models to improve predictive robustness and translational relevance.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Discover Applied Sciences
Published
2026-02-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-026-08308-7
Primary Topic
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Benchmarking web-based in-silico toxicity prediction tools using gold-standard datasets across five key endpoints

Ananya Sreekumar, Manjunatha Reddy A H, Ananya Sudarsan, Varshini Ganesan Selvi et al.
Discover Applied Sciences
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
article

Benchmarking web-based in-silico toxicity prediction tools using gold-standard datasets across five key endpoints

Ananya Sreekumar, Manjunatha Reddy A H, Ananya Sudarsan, Varshini Ganesan Selvi, Sumathra Manokaran, Anirudh R. Urs, Prutha V. Murthy
article en

Abstract

In silico toxicity prediction tools have become indispensable in early drug development for assessing safety risks. However, their reported predictive performance is rarely evaluated against independent experimental datasets. In this study, we systematically benchmark four widely used free, web-based toxicity predictors– ProTox, pkCSM, ADMETLab, and vNN-ADMET across experimentally validated hepatotoxicity, cardiotoxicity (hERG inhibition), nephrotoxicity, blood–brain barrier (BBB) permeability, and mutagenicity (AMES) endpoints using gold-standard datasets, including DILIrank, hERG Central, DIRIL, B3DB, and the ISSTOX Chemical Toxicity database. Tool-reported endpoint-specific performance metrics were first analyzed and subsequently compared against externally benchmarked predictions generated on independent compound sets. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, specificity, and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC). Our results reveal pronounced discrepancies between tool-reported and benchmarked performance across multiple endpoints, indicating limited generalizability of several models beyond their original training and validation domains. While ProTox and vNN-ADMET demonstrated strong reported performance across endpoints, only mutagenicity predictions remained consistently robust under benchmarking conditions (F1 > 0.89; MCC > 0.80). ProTox achieved the highest benchmarked performance for hepatotoxicity (F1 = 0.92; MCC = 0.84), whereas ADMETLab showed balanced recall-driven performance for nephrotoxicity and cardiotoxicity but exhibited reduced specificity for hepatotoxicity, suggesting overprediction. In contrast, BBB permeability and nephrotoxicity emerged as the most challenging endpoints, with substantial performance degradation relative to reported metrics and consistently low MCC values across tools. Overall, no single tool demonstrated uniform reliability across all toxicity endpoints when evaluated on independent datasets. These findings underscore the limitations of relying solely on tool reported performance and highlight the necessity of endpoint aware benchmarking in in-silico toxicity screening. This study provides actionable guidance for tool selection in early drug discovery and supports future development of ensemble and applicability domain aware models to improve predictive robustness and translational relevance.

Discover Applied SciencesVol. 8(3)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.