Claim and evidence Close ×
Jayatunga et al. (Drug Discovery Today, published online 30 April 2024) state that, in their analysis, AI-discovered molecules have an 80–90% success rate in phase I, substantially higher than historic industry averages, and a phase II success rate of about 40%, comparable to those averages, on a limited sample. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2024-04-30 · publication Records dated 2024 → Role Earliest located Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Scope of the passage Phase I only; phase II stated as comparable. Scope and limits The record documents what this text states, in its register; it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence on or from any other text. Quoted from the Europe PMC record of the abstract. The cross-family machine check of 2026-10-30 read the main text through an author-uploaded copy relayed by a web reader (the publisher’s text and supplementary tables were not retrieved): as of December 2023 the authors count 21 successes among 24 completed phase I trials and four among ten phase II trials. Their comparison is with historical averages, not a matched one, on a small, selected sample of molecules from AI-native companies, and discontinuations for commercial reasons constrain the reading. The record states the authors’ rate statement with those caveats; it is not evidence that AI caused a higher rate (maintainer decision of 2026-10-30). Earliest located for this proposition among the texts found by the searches described under “How we searched”; not a claim that no earlier text exists.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
How successful are AI-discovered drugs in clinical trials? A first analysis and emerging lessons ↗ Europe PMC (record of the PubMed abstract; article in Drug Discovery Today) · 2024-04-30
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “In Phase I we find AI-discovered molecules have an 80-90% success rate, substantially higher than historic industry averages.” Location in source Abstract (Europe PMC record, abstractText)
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-30
Source details and check notes Authors Kp Jayatunga M; Ayers M; Bruens L; Jayanth D; Meier C Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-30 (SHA-256 6264b8f15122449d0b3f0b4ab0251f46bad1fffa3ae7dcf40c5d4bd01868de32). Europe PMC REST core record (JSON) with the abstract; the publisher page (doi.org redirect to Elsevier) returned no readable text. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-30 Language English (en) Attribution Kp Jayatunga M, Ayers M, Bruens L, Jayanth D, Meier C, “How successful are AI-discovered drugs in clinical trials? A first analysis and emerging lessons”, 2024-04-30. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, AI in biology (research/ai-in-biology). The quotation (18 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-30. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. Abstract text relayed by Europe PMC's record of the PubMed abstract: the authors' own text, so primary; the journal expression was not read. The authors' reported finding. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-30, item A59) answered the record’s question blind from fresh retrievals and agreed with the record. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
How successful are AI-discovered drugs in clinical trials? A first analysis and emerging lessons ↗ Europe PMC (record of the PubMed abstract; article in Drug Discovery Today) · 2024-04-30
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Paraphrase in phase II the authors find a success rate of about 40%, on a limited sample, which they call comparable to historic industry averages.
Location in source Abstract (Europe PMC record, abstractText)
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-30
Source details and check notes Authors Kp Jayatunga M; Ayers M; Bruens L; Jayanth D; Meier C Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-30 (SHA-256 6264b8f15122449d0b3f0b4ab0251f46bad1fffa3ae7dcf40c5d4bd01868de32). Europe PMC REST core record (JSON) with the abstract; the publisher page (doi.org redirect to Elsevier) returned no readable text. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-30 Language English (en) Attribution Kp Jayatunga M, Ayers M, Bruens L, Jayanth D, Meier C, “How successful are AI-discovered drugs in clinical trials? A first analysis and emerging lessons”, 2024-04-30. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, AI in biology (research/ai-in-biology). The paraphrase is Selekoa’s, written from the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-30; it is not a quotation and was not machine-matched. Abstract text relayed by Europe PMC's record of the PubMed abstract: the authors' own text, so primary; the journal expression was not read. Explicit paraphrase, to stay within the quotation budget of a short record; kept because it bounds the claim to phase I. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-30, item A59) answered the record’s question blind from fresh retrievals and agreed with the record. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A passage of the document meets the proposition’s criterion. The record documents what the text states, in its register (fiction and satire are labelled); it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence on or from another text.
Date. Electronic publication date as given by Europe PMC.
Record ID aib-arg-p6-jayatunga-2024