An explainable hypothesis-driven approach to Drug-Induced Liver Injury with HADES D

AI benchmark · Biomedicine

Tier
D why
Snapshot

What is An explainable hypothesis-driven approach to Drug-Induced Liver Injury with HADES?

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) remains a leading cause of late-stage clinical trial attrition. However, existing computational predictors primarily rely on binary classification, a framing that limits generalization and yields no mechanistic insight to guide translational decisions. We argue that DILI prediction is better posed as an explainable hypothesis-generation problem. To support this shift, we introduce the DILER Benchmark, a dataset that extends beyond binary labels by augmenting a curated set of molecules with mechanistic hepatotoxicity hypotheses derived from biomedical literature. We further present HADES, an agentic system designed to generate transparent and auditable reasoning traces. By combining molecular-level predictions, metabolite decomposition, structural understanding, and toxicity pathway evidence, HADES mechanistically assesses DILI risk. Evaluated on the DILER Benchmark, HADES outperforms existing models in binary classification, achieving a ROC-AUC of 0.68 on the Test Set and 0.59 on the challenging Post-2021 Set, compared with 0.63 and 0.50 for DILI-Predictor, respectively. More importantly, we establish a baseline for mechanistic hypothesis generation, where HADES achieves a Hypothesis Alignment Fuzzy Jaccard Index of 0.16. This result underscores the inherent complexity of the task while highlighting the need for advanced explainable approaches in predictive toxicology.

Tier D · a leaderboard, listed apart

D

Long tail: little or no usage data yet.

How much stands behind a tier: usage, who backs it, a confirmed line from its own site or paper, and a clear read on X. High with three of the four, medium with two, low otherwise.

  • 4 models scored
  • no proper name (a paper title or description)
  • in curated RL directories (1 pt)
How we got to tier D
  1. Adoption: 4 models scored; no proper name (a paper title or description). Tier D.
  2. Not yet read on X.
  3. In curated RL directories: 1 point, a floor of none.
  4. Not yet confirmed by a line from its own site or paper.
  5. Judged a leaderboard, arena or index rather than one benchmark (or not a benchmark at all): listed apart.

A clear view on X moves a tier one step up or down; most entries don't move. How tiers work.

Not on the map yet: no line from its own site or paper places it in a domain.

Next: browse all benchmarks. Entry from the RL Research daily scrape of public sources, 2026-10-11 snapshot.