D

Deep Research Archives

  • new
  • |
  • threads
  • |
  • comments
  • |
  • show
  • |
  • ask
  • |
  • jobs
  • |
  • submit

Popular Stories

  • 공학적 반론: 현대 한국 운전자를 위한 15,000km 엔진오일 교환주기 해부2 points
  • Ray Kurzweil Influence, Predictive Accuracy, and Future Visions for Humanity2 points
  • 인지적 주권: 점술 심리 해체와 정신적 방어 체계 구축2 points
  • 성장기 시력 발달에 대한 종합 보고서: 근시의 원인과 빛 노출의 결정적 역할 분석2 points
  • The Scientific Basis of Diverse Sexual Orientations A Comprehensive Review2 points
  • New
  • |
  • Threads
  • |
  • Comments
  • |
  • Show
  • |
  • Ask
  • |
  • Jobs
  • |
  • Submit
  • |
  • Contact
Search…
threads
submit
login
  1. Home/
  2. Stories/
  3. The AI Scientist Paradigm: Autonomy, Efficacy, and Safety in Accelerated Vaccine Discovery
▲

The AI Scientist Paradigm: Autonomy, Efficacy, and Safety in Accelerated Vaccine Discovery

0 point by adroot1 1 month ago | flag | hide | 0 comments

Research Report: The AI Scientist Paradigm: Autonomy, Efficacy, and Safety in Accelerated Vaccine Discovery

Executive Summary

This report synthesizes extensive research to address the extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) configured as 'AI Scientists' can autonomously navigate the full cycle of vaccine discovery and how their resultant candidates compare to those from traditional human-led pharmaceutical methodologies. The findings indicate a profound, ongoing transformation in vaccinology, characterized by augmented intelligence rather than full automation.

Key Findings on Autonomy: 'AI Scientists' demonstrate a very significant degree of autonomy, but it is primarily confined to the in silico or computational stages of discovery. This "full cycle" of AI navigation encompasses hypothesis generation, target identification, molecular design, and predictive safety assessment. The system operates as a powerful discovery engine, moving from raw pathogenic data to a highly optimized, computationally validated vaccine candidate. However, full "lights-out" autonomy from concept to market-approved vaccine is not yet a reality. Human oversight remains indispensable for strategic direction, navigating the indispensable wet-lab validation bottleneck, interpreting complex biological phenomena, and managing regulatory pathways. The dominant and most effective operational model is a human-AI collaborative paradigm, where AI serves as a "co-scientist," augmenting human ingenuity with unparalleled speed and scale.

Key Findings on Efficacy: The evidence strongly suggests that vaccine candidates developed using AI-driven methodologies can be demonstrably superior in efficacy to those created through traditional approaches. This is achieved through high-precision epitope prediction and, most notably, the optimization of molecular constructs like mRNA. For example, the LinearDesign AI tool has generated mRNA vaccine sequences that produce antibody responses up to 128 times greater than traditionally designed sequences due to enhanced stability and translational efficiency. This ability to explore a vastly larger molecular design space increases the probability of discovering candidates with superior potency, durability, and breadth of protection.

Key Findings on Safety: AI's primary contribution to vaccine safety is a revolutionary enhancement of the process of safety assessment and surveillance, rather than the creation of intrinsically "safer" molecules. AI models exhibit superior predictive accuracy for key safety parameters like toxicity and off-target effects, allowing for the de-risking of candidates at the earliest design stages. During clinical development and post-market deployment, AI enables real-time pharmacovigilance, analyzing massive, diverse datasets to detect adverse event signals far more rapidly and sensitively than traditional manual reporting systems. While AI-designed candidates must meet the same rigorous regulatory standards, the process of reaching and monitoring that standard is made faster, more informed, and more proactive.

Barriers and Future Outlook: Despite rapid progress, significant barriers prevent full autonomy. These include the indispensable need for physical-world experimental validation (the "wet-lab bottleneck"), the "black box" problem of model interpretability, the risk of algorithmic bias stemming from incomplete or unrepresentative data, and the inability of current AI to predict novel, long-term biological events without historical precedent. The future of vaccine discovery lies in deepening the synergy between human expertise and AI's computational power, creating a new paradigm that promises to deliver safer, more effective vaccines at a speed previously thought impossible.


Introduction

The traditional paradigm of vaccine discovery is a testament to human ingenuity but is also characterized by a lengthy, costly, and high-failure-rate process, often taking 5 to 15 years to bring a candidate from concept to clinic. The global urgency created by the COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the adoption of novel technologies, prominently featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). This report addresses a pivotal question for the future of medicine: To what extent can Large Language Models (LLMs), configured as sophisticated 'AI Scientists', autonomously navigate the intricate cycle of vaccine discovery, and how do the candidates they produce measure up against the established gold standard of human-led pharmaceutical development in terms of efficacy and safety?

This comprehensive research report synthesizes findings from an expansive investigation into this emerging paradigm. It moves beyond the conceptual to examine the practical applications, quantifiable performance metrics, and inherent limitations of AI in vaccinology. The analysis covers the entire AI-navigated discovery pipeline—from the initial mining of biological data to generate novel hypotheses, through the creative process of molecular design and optimization, to the rigorous in silico prediction of safety and efficacy. By systematically evaluating the capabilities and outputs of the 'AI Scientist' model, this report aims to provide a clear and nuanced understanding of its current impact and future trajectory in the global fight against infectious diseases.


Key Findings

This section outlines the principal findings derived from the comprehensive research synthesis, organized thematically to address the core components of the research query.

1. The Scope of AI Autonomy: A Computationally-Bounded Revolution The "full cycle" of vaccine discovery autonomously navigated by an 'AI Scientist' is a powerful but bounded process, primarily contained within the pre-clinical, computational domain. This in silico cycle encompasses: (1) Pathogen Analysis and Hypothesis Generation; (2) Antigen Discovery and Prioritization; (3) Molecular Design and Optimization; (4) Predictive Efficacy and Safety Modeling; and (5) Iterative Refinement. While AI demonstrates significant autonomy within this workflow, it does not manage the entire lab-to-market pipeline. Human intervention is critical for validating AI-generated hypotheses and shepherding candidates through the physical stages of process development, manufacturing, and clinical trials.

2. The Dominant Paradigm: The Human-AI "Co-Scientist" Collaboration The most prevalent and effective implementation of AI in vaccine discovery is not the replacement of human scientists but a deep, collaborative partnership. In this "AI co-scientist" model, AI agents perform the computationally intensive tasks of large-scale data analysis, pattern recognition, and hypothesis generation. Human experts then guide this process, validate the AI's outputs using their domain knowledge, and make the final strategic decisions. This synergy combines the brute-force computational power and speed of AI with the critical thinking, nuanced biological understanding, and ethical judgment of human researchers.

3. Superior Efficacy of AI-Generated Candidates Compelling quantitative evidence indicates that AI-designed vaccine candidates can exhibit significantly enhanced efficacy compared to traditional counterparts. This superiority stems from AI's ability to perform multi-parameter optimization at a massive scale. Key examples include:

  • mRNA Optimization: The AI tool LinearDesign has produced mRNA candidates yielding antibody responses up to 128 times greater than conventionally designed sequences by optimizing for both molecular stability and protein expression efficiency.
  • Increased Protein Production: Other language model-based designs for mRNA vaccines have demonstrated a 33% increase in protein production, leading to a more potent antigenic stimulus.
  • High-Precision Targeting: AI excels at predicting the most immunogenic and conserved T-cell and B-cell epitopes, allowing for the design of multi-epitope vaccines that elicit a more robust, durable, and broadly protective immune response.

4. Enhanced Safety Through Predictive Power and Proactive Surveillance AI is revolutionizing the process of ensuring vaccine safety. Its primary contribution is not in creating intrinsically different molecules but in profoundly enhancing the methods of safety assessment and monitoring.

  • Predictive Toxicology: AI models can predict potential toxicity, off-target effects, and adverse events at the initial design stage, allowing researchers to flag and discard high-risk candidates before they enter costly and time-consuming trials.
  • Quantitative Accuracy: AI models for B-cell epitope prediction have achieved accuracy scores (AUC) of up to 0.945, significantly outperforming traditional classifiers (AUC ~0.78), thereby reducing the risk of selecting poorly targeted or cross-reactive antigens.
  • Real-Time Pharmacovigilance: In the post-market phase, AI systems can analyze real-time data from electronic health records and other sources to detect rare adverse event signals far faster and more comprehensively than legacy manual reporting systems.

5. Dramatically Accelerated Development Timelines The most visible impact of AI integration is the radical compression of the vaccine development timeline. The development of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, where a process that traditionally takes over a decade was reduced to under a year, serves as a landmark case. Moderna's mRNA-1273 candidate was ready for human trials just 42 days after the SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced. This acceleration is a direct result of AI's ability to rapidly identify viable targets, run thousands of in silico experiments, and optimize candidates computationally, thus minimizing the reliance on slower wet-lab experimentation in the early discovery phases.

6. Critical Barriers Preventing Full "Lights-Out" Automation Despite its transformative capabilities, the vision of a fully autonomous 'AI Scientist' is constrained by several fundamental challenges:

  • The Experimental Validation Bottleneck: AI's predictions must be validated in the physical world through wet-lab experiments, animal models, and human trials. This remains a time-consuming, resource-intensive, and high-failure-rate process that AI cannot yet automate.
  • Data Dependency and Algorithmic Bias: The performance of AI is contingent on large, high-quality, and diverse datasets. Incomplete, heterogeneous, or biased data can lead to models that produce inequitable vaccines, which are less effective or safe for underrepresented populations.
  • The "Black Box" Problem: The lack of interpretability in many complex deep learning models poses a significant hurdle for scientific validation, researcher trust, and regulatory approval, as understanding the biological rationale behind an AI's design choice is often difficult.
  • Lack of True Scientific Reasoning: Current AI excels at pattern recognition and workflow automation but lacks the capacity for independent, creative scientific discovery and complex, multi-step planning without significant human guidance and oversight. It cannot yet predict truly novel, long-term biological phenomena for which no historical data exists.

Detailed Analysis

This section provides a deeper exploration of the key findings, integrating technical details, specific examples, and quantitative data to build a comprehensive picture of the 'AI Scientist' paradigm.

4.1 The 'AI Scientist' Operational Framework: An End-to-End In Silico Cycle

The concept of an 'AI Scientist' is best understood not as a single monolithic entity but as a sophisticated ecosystem of interconnected AI tools that automate and accelerate the computational phase of vaccine discovery. This workflow is a closed-loop, data-driven cycle.

Phase 1: Hypothesis Generation and Target Identification The cycle begins with LLMs ingesting and synthesizing information at a scale unattainable for human researchers. Using Natural Language Processing (NLP), tools like RAPTER can screen millions of scientific papers, clinical trial databases, and genomic repositories to identify knowledge gaps and generate novel, plausible research hypotheses. This is augmented by methodologies like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), which grounds AI-generated hypotheses in verifiable scientific evidence, enhancing trust and transparency. Simultaneously, ML algorithms perform reverse vaccinology. Tools like Vaxign-ML analyze a pathogen's entire proteome to predict which antigens are most likely to be immunogenic, surface-exposed, and conserved across variants. This initial phase rapidly narrows the field from thousands of potential targets to a handful of high-priority candidates, as was demonstrated in the swift identification of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein.

Phase 2: Comprehensive Molecular Design and Optimization Once a target is identified, the AI workflow transitions to a multi-faceted design and engineering stage.

  • Structural and Epitope Design: The foundation of this phase is the accurate prediction of 3D protein structures, a field revolutionized by tools like DeepMind's AlphaFold and RoseTTAFold. With an accurate structure, other deep learning tools (NetMHCpan, DeepVacPred, MARIA) can predict T-cell and B-cell epitopes with high precision by modeling their binding affinity to human immune receptors. This allows for the design of focused, multi-epitope vaccines that present only the most critical pathogen fragments to the immune system.
  • mRNA Platform Optimization: For mRNA vaccines, generative AI is indispensable. An 'AI Scientist' can design and screen millions of potential mRNA sequences in silico. Specialized LLMs like "CodonBERT" and tools like GeneOptimizer perform codon optimization—substituting synonymous codons—to enhance protein expression and increase the mRNA molecule's stability without altering the final antigen. It is this computational screening and optimization at scale that led to the development of the LinearDesign tool's highly potent candidates.
  • Formulation and Delivery System Design: A vaccine's success also depends on its formulation. AI tools like AdjuPred can predict the efficacy of different adjuvants. For delivery, AI frameworks built on TensorFlow or PyTorch can model and optimize Lipid Nanoparticle (LNP) formulations to maximize stability and ensure efficient delivery to target cells, a critical component of mRNA vaccine technology.

Phase 3: In Silico Validation and Iterative Refinement Before any physical molecules are synthesized, candidates undergo rigorous computational testing. AI-based molecular docking simulations using algorithms like Glide and AutoDock Vina predict the interactions between the designed antigen and host cell receptors or antibodies. The predicted efficacy and safety profiles from these simulations are then fed back to the design phase. If a candidate shows suboptimal binding or potential safety flags, the AI can autonomously adjust the molecular structure, select a different epitope, or even revisit the initial hypothesis. This rapid, closed-loop iteration allows for the exploration of a design space orders of magnitude larger than what is feasible with manual, sequential laboratory methods, leading to a highly optimized candidate for wet-lab validation.

4.2 Comparative Efficacy: A New Benchmark for Vaccine Performance

The outputs of the AI-driven design cycle are not just developed faster; the evidence indicates they can be qualitatively superior. The comparison is not incremental but transformative.

Mechanism of Enhanced Efficacy: The dramatic efficacy gains, such as the 128-fold increase in antibody response reported with LinearDesign, stem from AI's ability to solve complex, multi-variable optimization problems. Traditional mRNA design often involves a trade-off between stability (how long the molecule lasts in the body) and translational efficiency (how effectively it is converted into protein). AI algorithms can analyze the vast sequence space to find "sweet spots" that co-optimize both parameters. The resulting mRNA molecule is more durable and is folded into an optimal secondary structure for the cell's ribosomal machinery, leading to a much greater yield of the target antigen from a given dose. This higher antigen expression elicits a proportionally stronger and more durable immune response.

Precision Engineering for Broader and More Durable Protection: Vaccine efficacy is fundamentally determined by presenting the right parts of a pathogen—the epitopes—to the immune system. AI's superior predictive accuracy in this domain is a game-changer.

  • Quantitative Performance: AI models for B-cell epitope prediction have achieved an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.945, and models for T-cell epitope prediction like MUNIS have shown a 26% performance increase over previous leading algorithms. This level of precision ensures that the vaccine is built around the most immunogenic regions of the pathogen.
  • Future-Proofing Vaccines: By identifying epitopes that are not only immunogenic but also highly conserved across different viral strains and historical variants, AI can help design vaccines that are more robust against pathogen mutation. This aims to create "variant-proof" or universal vaccines that offer broader and more long-lasting protection.

The early but positive efficacy reports from an AI-designed COVID-19 vaccine deployed in Laos provide crucial real-world corroboration for these impressive preclinical findings, suggesting the computational advantages are translating into tangible clinical benefits.

4.3 Comparative Safety: Revolutionizing Risk Assessment and Pharmacovigilance

AI-driven methodologies are positioned to produce candidates that are potentially safer than traditionally developed ones because the process of identifying and mitigating risk is more powerful, proactive, and comprehensive.

Proactive Safety by Design: A significant advancement is the ability to predict and design-out safety liabilities in silico.

  • Predictive Toxicology: Machine learning models trained on vast toxicological databases (e.g., ChEMBL, DrugBank) can assess a novel vaccine molecule and forecast its potential for harm. The AIVIVE framework, using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), has shown an 82.31% accuracy in predicting necrosis by translating in vitro data into more clinically relevant in vivo-like results, reducing reliance on early-stage animal testing.
  • Minimizing Off-Target Effects: During antigen design, AI algorithms can rapidly screen candidate sequences against the entire human proteome. This computational cross-referencing minimizes homology with host proteins, thereby reducing the risk of autoimmune reactions or other off-target effects—a task that is impractically laborious to perform manually at a genomic scale.

A Paradigm Shift in Safety Surveillance: AI's impact extends far beyond the design phase into clinical trials and post-market monitoring.

  • Optimized Clinical Trials: AI contributes to smarter and safer trial design by identifying optimal dosing schedules, stratifying patient populations to identify those at higher risk, and predicting potential adverse effects.
  • Next-Generation Pharmacovigilance: Traditional safety surveillance relies on passive, spontaneous reporting systems (like VAERS), which are known for delays and underreporting. AI revolutionizes this by actively and continuously mining real-time data from disparate sources, including electronic health records (EHRs), insurance claims, and even social media. NLP models can analyze this data to detect potential adverse event signals almost instantaneously, with demonstrated high accuracy (AUC 0.91). This transforms pharmacovigilance from a reactive, historical analysis to a proactive, real-time safety monitoring system.

Discussion

The synthesis of findings reveals a complex and rapidly evolving relationship between AI and vaccine discovery. The 'AI Scientist' is not a futuristic concept but a present-day reality that is fundamentally reshaping pharmaceutical R&D. This section discusses the broader implications of these findings, the nature of AI's autonomy, and the critical challenges that must be addressed.

The Extent of Autonomy: A Powerful Co-Pilot, Not an Autonomous Pilot The research definitively shows that the 'AI Scientist' operates as an incredibly powerful co-pilot. It can autonomously execute complex computational workflows with superhuman speed and scale, but it lacks the grounding in the physical world, the contextual understanding, and the creative reasoning of a human scientist. The human researcher remains the strategic pilot, responsible for setting the destination (the research goal), interpreting the instrument readings (the AI's output), making course corrections based on real-world conditions (experimental data), and ultimately taking responsibility for the flight. The wet-lab bottleneck is the clearest manifestation of this limitation; in silico success is only a hypothesis until it is proven in the messy, unpredictable reality of a biological system.

Efficacy and Safety: A Co-Optimized Future Historically, drug development has often involved trade-offs between maximizing efficacy and ensuring safety. AI's ability to navigate a vast, multi-dimensional design space allows for the simultaneous co-optimization of multiple parameters. By integrating predictive safety models directly into the molecular design loop, the AI can explore pathways to high efficacy while actively avoiding regions of the design space with known safety liabilities. This integrated approach promises to deliver candidates that are not only more potent but also safer by design, increasing the probability of success in late-stage clinical trials where many traditional candidates fail due to unforeseen toxicity.

Implications for the Future of Pharmaceutical R&D The successful integration of the 'AI Scientist' model has profound implications. It promises a future of personalized vaccinology, where vaccines could be rapidly tailored to an individual's unique genetic and immunological profile. For public health, it represents a foundational shift in pandemic preparedness, enabling the development of targeted vaccines in months, not years. Furthermore, as these AI tools become more accessible, they could democratize aspects of drug discovery, empowering smaller labs and research institutions to compete with large pharmaceutical companies.

Addressing the Gaps: A Roadmap for Trustworthy AI in Medicine To unlock the full potential of the 'AI Scientist' and move towards greater, more reliable autonomy, the scientific community must address the significant remaining challenges:

  1. Curation of FAIR Data: The most pressing need is for large, globally representative, high-quality datasets that are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR). Addressing data gaps and biases is essential to ensure equitable vaccine outcomes for all populations.
  2. Development of Explainable AI (XAI): Overcoming the "black box" problem is critical for regulatory approval and scientific trust. Researchers need tools that can elucidate the biological reasoning behind an AI's predictions and design choices.
  3. Establishment of Regulatory Frameworks: Health authorities and policymakers must develop clear, agile regulatory pathways for validating and approving medicines designed by AI. These frameworks must address crucial questions of accountability, transparency, and data privacy.
  4. Bridging the In Silico to In Vivo Gap: While a grand challenge, future research must focus on improving the predictive accuracy of computational models to better reflect complex biological reality, thereby reducing the failure rate at the expensive and time-consuming experimental validation stage.

Conclusions

This comprehensive research synthesis provides a clear, multi-faceted answer to the central research query.

First, to the question of autonomy, Large Language Models configured as 'AI Scientists' can autonomously navigate the computational, pre-clinical stages of vaccine discovery to a very significant extent. They have automated the workflow from data analysis and hypothesis generation through molecular design and in silico validation. However, this autonomy is bounded; the current state-of-the-art is a highly synergistic human-AI collaborative model, not a fully independent AI agent. Human expertise remains indispensable for strategic oversight, experimental validation, and navigating the complexities of clinical and regulatory science.

Second, regarding the comparison of resultant candidates, the evidence is compelling. AI-developed candidates demonstrate the potential for superior efficacy, driven by an unprecedented ability to optimize molecular designs for potency and breadth of protection. The quantitative improvements in antibody response and protein expression are not incremental but represent a potential step-change in vaccine performance. In terms of safety, while the final molecular products are held to the same rigorous standards, the AI-driven process for developing and monitoring them is profoundly enhanced. Through superior predictive toxicology and real-time, large-scale pharmacovigilance, the AI-augmented methodology offers a faster, more informed, and more proactive approach to ensuring patient safety.

In conclusion, the 'AI Scientist' has emerged as a transformative force in vaccinology. It is accelerating the pace of innovation, expanding the boundaries of molecular design, and enhancing our ability to create more effective and safer vaccines. While the vision of a fully autonomous discovery system remains on the horizon, the current human-AI partnership is already delivering on the promise of a new era in medicine—one where human ingenuity, amplified by artificial intelligence, can meet the challenge of infectious diseases with unprecedented speed and precision.

References

Total unique sources: 160

IDSourceIDSourceIDSource
[1]pharmanow.live[2]nih.gov[3]mkscienceset.com
[4]intuitionlabs.ai[5]medrxiv.org[6]mdpi.com
[7]frontiersin.org[8]devm.io[9]acs.org
[10]nih.gov[11]oregonstate.edu[12]news-medical.net
[13]medrxiv.org[14]pfizer.com[15]arxiv.org
[16]arxiv.org[17]regulatingai.org[18]sakana.ai
[19]reddit.com[20]frontiersin.org[21]researchgate.net
[22]fronteousa.com[23]research.google[24]quantori.com
[25]theclarklab.org[26]alzforum.org[27]www.gov.uk
[28]medium.com[29]biorxiv.org[30]4open.science
[31]arxiv.org[32]researchgate.net[33]news-medical.net
[34]pharma-iq.com[35]openreview.net[36]arxiv.org
[37]mlconference.ai[38]frontiersin.org[39]frontiersin.org
[40]lanl.gov[41]deeplearning.ai[42]uw.edu
[43]intuitionlabs.ai[44]technologynetworks.com[45]frontiersin.org
[46]nih.gov[47]towardsdatascience.com[48]gavi.org
[49]news-medical.net[50]nih.gov[51]youtube.com
[52]sentisight.ai[53]nih.gov[54]chemrxiv.org
[55]jmir.org[56]nih.gov[57]oregonstate.edu
[58]intuitionlabs.ai[59]mdpi.com[60]openaccessjournals.com
[61]medrxiv.org[62]mkscienceset.com[63]frontiersin.org
[64]jhu.edu[65]researchgate.net[66]sabin.org
[67]nih.gov[68]mkscienceset.com[69]devm.io
[70]nih.gov[71]pharmanow.live[72]mdpi.com
[73]medrxiv.org[74]medrxiv.org[75]researchgate.net
[76]pharmanow.live[77]gavi.org[78]mdpi.com
[79]frontiersin.org[80]nih.gov[81]pfizer.com
[82]researchgate.net[83]historyofvaccines.org[84]chop.edu
[85]cdc.gov[86]intuitionlabs.ai[87]lanl.gov
[88]news-medical.net[89]mlconference.ai[90]computabio.com
[91]devm.io[92]pharmanow.live[93]jst.go.jp
[94]jst.go.jp[95]mit.edu[96]sentisight.ai
[97]netguru.com[98]creative-biolabs.com[99]news-medical.net
[100]frontiersin.org[101]uw.edu[102]youtube.com
[103]researchgate.net[104]researchgate.net[105]frontiersin.org
[106]encyclopedia.pub[107]mdpi.com[108]nih.gov
[109]medrxiv.org[110]mdpi.com[111]openaccessjournals.com
[112]msd.com[113]mkscienceset.com[114]medrxiv.org
[115]ospivax.it[116]mlconference.ai[117]researchgate.net
[118]mdpi.com[119]intuitionlabs.ai[120]datacreds.com
[121]pharmanow.live[122]researchgate.net[123]researchgate.net
[124]nih.gov[125]frontiersin.org[126]openaccessjournals.com
[127]researchgate.net[128]nih.gov[129]nih.gov
[130]nih.gov[131]mdpi.com[132]bolton.ac.uk
[133]nih.gov[134]researchgate.net[135]frontiersin.org
[136]nih.gov[137]researchgate.net[138]scribd.com
[139]medrxiv.org[140]mkscienceset.com[141]frontiersin.org
[142]nih.gov[143]researchgate.net[144]nih.gov
[145]nih.gov[146]tandfonline.com[147]mdpi.com
[148]datacreds.com[149]tesserblu.com[150]nih.gov
[151]medrxiv.org[152]drugdiscoverytrends.com[153]pharmanow.live
[154]mkscienceset.com[155]mlconference.ai[156]jurnalmahasiswa.com
[157]researchgate.net[158]nih.gov[159]fondation-merieux.org
[160]nih.gov

Related Topics

Latest StoriesMore story
No comments to show