ADMET assessment is a set of questions

Different endpoints need different interpretation

The SwissADME paper describes a tool for estimating physicochemical properties and several pharmacokinetic and medicinal chemistry related characteristics of small molecules. Such outputs address different aspects of a compound. An absorption estimate, a metabolic liability, and a physicochemical descriptor are not interchangeable measures of overall suitability. An ADMET review should preserve the meaning of each endpoint. [1]

Build a compound review sheet

Begin with a stable compound identifier and a checked molecular representation. Record the method used for each endpoint and keep descriptors separate from predicted biological outcomes. Write the research question next to the results so the review is tied to a use case. If an endpoint is missing or the tool cannot process a structure, make that visible instead of replacing it with an assumed value.

Our suggested sheet includes the structure representation, method, result, units where relevant, and a short interpretation. Compare compounds under the same processing choices where possible. Identify which predictions need further evidence and which observations come from measured data. Avoid turning a collection of outputs into an unexplained green or red label.

Prioritize follow up work

Use the review to choose what should be investigated next. This might be a chemical representation issue, an alternative calculation, or an experimental measurement. A compound ranking should explain the criteria used and the tradeoffs accepted. The workflow can be automated while the interpretation remains open to review. The goal is a traceable assessment, not a claim that a predicted profile proves safety or clinical effectiveness.