Clinical benefit

Area: definition. Apply the shared measurement protocol.

Estimated progress toward AI-managed drug discovery

15% complete — judgment-based estimate as of November 7, 2026. Confidence: low. The scale starts at 0% before ChatGPT's public release in 2022 and ends at 100% when AI manages the field's continuing advancement without human participation. This rates the outcome's contribution to that transition, not the percentage of tasks solved, a measured fraction of the field, or time remaining.

The shared scoring rubric uses five equally weighted dimensions: execution, breadth, agenda-setting, validation, and sustained autonomous improvement. Points for this outcome are 5 + 5 + 0 + 5 + 0 = 15/100, in that order; each dimension has a maximum of 20. These component judgments make the estimate inspectable, but are not independently measured scores.

Reason for the estimate: A small randomized trial provides an early clinical signal. Exploratory efficacy, human-led trials and missing confirmatory benefit keep autonomy progress low. The dated baseline below supplies the findings and source links used for this assessment. Unmeasured components receive no demonstrated-progress credit; missing evidence does not prove a missing capability.

What would move the score: Track a prespecified confirmatory clinical endpoint, treatment-effect interval, adverse events, withdrawals and longer follow-up; retain this as phase 2a evidence. Higher autonomy scores additionally require AI to select worthwhile work, validate results and improve the process over repeated cycles without human research management, repair or adjudication. Lower the score if replication fails, quality regresses or previously hidden human assistance is found. Preserve this dated estimate when adding future assessments.

Measurement and acceptance rule

Prespecified patient-relevant primary outcomes, effect sizes, uncertainty, adverse events, and withdrawals in controlled trials.

Evidence requirements

Document exactly where AI contributed: target choice, molecular design, experiments, or trial operations. Compare matched programs and control for indication, modality, starting maturity, and selection bias. Use registered trial protocols, full outcome reporting, and independent analysis. Docking scores, animal responses, and biomarker changes must not be presented as established patient benefit.

Related milestones

See the area's proposed milestones. Proposed targets are distinct from the dated evidence below.

Baseline as of November 7 2026

Status: Small randomized trial; efficacy exploratory. Sources accessed November 7, 2026. This is a documentary baseline, not an independent replication or an assertion of the worldwide best result. An unknown measurement is not zero.

Dated findings

June 3, 2025: In 71 patients over 12 weeks, 60 mg daily rentosertib showed mean FVC change +98.4 mL (95% CI 10.9–185.9), versus -20.3 mL (-116.1–75.6) with placebo. Rentosertib randomized phase 2a trial.

July 7, 2026: The sponsor announced phase III initiation in July 2026; initiation is not a phase III efficacy result. Insilico: phase III initiation announcement.

Interpretation and tracking value

Safety was the primary endpoint; these are arm-specific intervals, not the interval for the treatment difference. The study does not establish survival benefit or confirmatory efficacy.

Next comparable measurement

Track a prespecified confirmatory clinical endpoint, treatment-effect interval, adverse events, withdrawals and longer follow-up; retain this as phase 2a evidence. Preserve this dated observation; append future results with their model/system version, denominator, budget and evidence level rather than overwriting it.