Today's cancer vaccine results from
@moderna_tx and
@Merck are exciting, confirming the earlier Phase 2 results and also the news we got a few months ago at
@ASCO.
They're also a great excuse to discuss the lifecycle of AI in the drug development process.
All emerging technologies have a maturation lifecycle. AI in the natural sciences is a perfect example.
On the "boring end", you have old-school ML classifiers, decision trees, SVMs, and computer vision techniques that are silently baked into every sequencing machine and molecular diagnostic workflow on the planet. Would you consider this "AI in drug development".
No, you wouldn't. (1) Because precision diagnostics aren't drug development and (2) because these techniques don't get clustered alongside the frontier/hypey areas like 'virtual cell'.
That's the other end of the spectrum, the "hypey end".
These are the AI implementations that attract disproportionate venture investment, make all the headlines, and that have attached a bunch of very smart sounding reasons why they'll never work.
They become associated with the whole. Folks will often point to them as class representatives for 'AI in drug development' as a simple way to reject the entire class's effects on the industry.
I have an allergic reaction to this because, to me, data-driven/ML methods are inseparable from and massively contribute to the life sciences.
It's just that we don't celebrate the critical trailing edge because it's lost its sci-fi sheen, but it nonetheless serves as the foundation that all new advances become reality.
So let's take the
@moderna_tx and
@Merck results. Would you consider this a success story for 'AI in drug development'? No, you probably wouldn't and I wouldn't blame you.
It's true that cancer vaccines had/have many translational obstacles spanning delivery, supply chain, format, antigen selection, and more. It's foolish to try to decompose and assign credit to these pillars quantitatively.
But let me zoom in to give some credit where it's due, because make no mistake, ML played a massive role.
Beyond the fact that advanced Illumina machines have onboard NVIDIA accelerators and run various deep-learning algorithms in their analysis pipelines, which provide the essential information for personalized cancer vaccines, I can offer up a few things you may not know.
@PersonalisInc, the diagnostic partner for
@Merck and
@moderna_tx throughout these vaccine trials, spent years training ML algorithms on proprietary immunopeptidomics datasets (paired sequencing and mass-spec) to help with neoantigen presentation/immunogenicity prediction.
This isn't commodity sequencing. These and other Personalis technologies enhanced by data-driven methods (e.g., enhanced HLA typing) were indispensable to this process by supplying the vaccine developers with high-fidelity mutanomes.
We don't know everything about the handoff to Moderna (e.g. which models Personalis used versus Moderna used), but we do knew they used another algorithm in the pipeline to select the exact neoantigens to include in the vaccine formulation.
So, I think it's safe to say that without the steady improvement in data-driven/ML/algorithmic techniques, we would not be standing here today with these results.
Of course, we can wax poetic that 'these aren't neural networks', and you'd be making my point for me. These weren't leading edge AI implementations, which is why the fuller class of technology doesn't earn its roses here.
But that's how this is going to happen. Non-leading AI techniques will continue creating value in drug development. Today's frontier techniques will improve, lose their association with 'hype', and folks will still move goalposts around what is AI in drug development.
But that's the nice thing about goalpost moving. You can start to build a nice trend-line about where things are going.
-------
*I use the term AI loosely to refer to all data-driven techniques. Don't @ me.