Assessing the utility of common arguments used in expert review of in silico predictions as part of ICH M7 assessments.

Expert review of two predictions, made by complementary (quantitative) structure-activity relationship models, to an overall conclusion is a key component of using in silico tools to assess the mutagenic potential of impurities as part of the ICH M7 guideline. In lieu of a specified protocol, numerous publications have presented best practise guides, often indicating the occurrence of common prediction scenarios and the evidence required to resolve them. A semi-automated expert review tool has been implemented in Lhasa Limited's Nexus platform following collation of these common arguments and assignment to the associated prediction scenarios made by Derek Nexus and Sarah Nexus. Using datasets primarily donated by pharmaceutical companies, an automated analysis of the frequency these prediction scenarios occur, and the likelihood of the associated arguments assigning the correct resolution, could then be conducted. This article highlights that a relatively small number of common arguments may be used to accurately resolve many prediction scenarios to a single conclusion. The use of a standardised method of argumentation and assessment of evidence for a given impurity is proposed to improve the efficiency and consistency of expert review as part of an ICH M7 submission.