ReviewPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2026
AI in Drug Discovery: Clinical Failures, Regulatory Reality, and the Validation Crisis Behind the Hype.
Review in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the life sciences has accelerated significantly between 2022 and 2026, accompanied by global investment exceeding USD 100 billion and widespread expectations of a transformative impact in drug discovery. Despite these advances, the extent to which AI has improved clinical outcomes remains unclear. This study presents a structured narrative review evaluating the economic, technical, clinical, and regulatory dimensions of AI adoption in drug discovery. Current evidence indicates that clinical attrition rates remain high, with approximately 90% of drug candidates entering clinical development failing to achieve regulatory approval. Although AI systems such as AlphaFold have achieved high structural prediction accuracy, with predicted local distance difference test (pLDDT) scores exceeding 90 for well-structured proteins and root mean square deviation (RMSD) values comparable to experimental methods, limitations persist in modelling protein dynamics, post-translational modifications, and protein-ligand interactions. Clinical case studies demonstrate that while AI can accelerate early-stage discovery timelines, these advantages do not consistently translate into improved late-stage success rates. Furthermore, reproducibility challenges, limited data transparency, and regulatory gaps continue to constrain reliable implementation. These findings suggest that AI in drug discovery is currently in a transitional phase characterised by high investment but limited validated clinical impact. Future progress will depend on strengthening validation frameworks, improving data sharing practices, and aligning regulatory standards with real-world clinical performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.