Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates performance discrepancies in ADMET models, suggesting new evaluation methods for reliability.
Public ADMET leaderboards such as Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) rank models by a single score under one fixed split. We ask three questions a deployer actually faces, across all 22 TDC ADMET endpoints: (i) how much does measured performance fall under realistic, chemistry-aware splits versus an optimistic random split; (ii) why the effect is heterogeneous and sometimes reverses; and (iii) whether selective prediction recovers the reliability that random-split numbers overstate. We evaluate two molecular representations (ECFP4 fingerprints and a frozen pretrained-transformer embedding) across all 22 endpoints. We make three contributions. First, a statistically honest gap atlas: signed, per-endpoint relative gaps with matched-replicate, split-seed block-bootstrap confidence intervals, paired Wilcoxon tests, and Benjamini-Hochberg FDR. Bemis-Murcko scaffold splits are much weaker stressors than cluster (sphere-exclusion) splits for ADMET — their median relative gap is about 2.3x smaller (+0.10 vs +0.23) and not established on 5 of 22 endpoints including hERG, consistent with Fooladi et al. (2025) — while cluster splits reveal a gap established on 21 of 22 endpoints (aggregate p < 1e-4). Second, error spikes roughly 8x in the most dissimilar nearest-neighbour similarity bin, so the gap is an applicability-domain effect. Third, we report an honest evaluation of uncertainty under shift, negatives included: split-conformal under-covers under cluster shift, covariate-shift weighting is a verified no-op that does not restore coverage, the best abstention signal is model-dependent, and per-endpoint abstention benefit does not track the optimism gap (Spearman rho = 0.07, n.s.). Frozen ChemBERTa embeddings shrink the gap modestly but significantly (p = 0.011) without closing it. All re-split numbers are anchored to TDC's official-split fingerprint baselines first; code and splits are released as a pip-installable, leakage-audited harness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suleman Imdad (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: