CEREBRO-X

Computational Drug-DDS Engineering · CEREBRO-X | Lecanemab

H01 · BBB Crossing Animation — Lecanemab + liposome
5-stage simulation based on computed DLVO + transcytosis + endosomal escape data
IV Injection → Bloodstream
30.0%
BBB Crossing (with DDS)
3.0%
Native BBB Crossing
10.0×
Enhancement Factor
50%
Endosomal Escape Eff.
0.50
Stealth Index
105 nm
Carrier Size
H02 · PBPK-CNS Digital Twin — 6-Compartment Time Course
Lecanemab + liposome | Disease state: healthy | Radau ODE solver | Pardridge 2012
0.0063
Cmax Brain (µg/mL)
0.0h
t_max Brain
0.00220
Kp,brain
1.501
AUC Brain (µg·h/mL)
682.32
AUC Plasma (µg·h/mL)
healthy
Disease State
H08 · Molecular Docking — Transferrin ↔ BBB Receptor Binding
Lecanemab | ΔG_avidity = -8.6 kcal/mol | Kd = 885 nM (Weak (>100nM)) | LIE + Bell avidity model
-8.6
ΔG (kcal/mol)
885 nM
Kd (affinity)
27709
Ligands/particle
1129575.8s
Residence time
30.0%
BBB Enhancement
105nm
Carrier size
ParameterValueMethod
ΔG single ligand-11.00 kcal/molLIE (Aqvist 1994)
ΔG avidity-8.59 kcal/molBell cooperative binding
Receptors engaged50Geometric model
Kd classWeak (>100nM)Equilibrium binding

Ligand-receptor docking uses Linear Interaction Energy (LIE) approximation. Avidity computed via Bell 1978 multi-valent model. Higher avidity = longer residence = more transcytosis events.

H09 · Docking + Release — Combined Delivery Simulation
Lecanemab from liposome | ΔG=-8.6 kcal/mol | t50_blood=21.0h | Escape=50%

Docking affinity → release kinetics correlation

Endosomal escape efficiency vs release rate

H03 · Drug Release Profile — Lecanemab
Weibull model | Sustained first-order | Max EE = 75%
21.0h
t50 in Blood
42.2h
t50 Endosomal
75%
Max Release (EE)
H14 · Shelf-Life & Degradation Predictor — Arrhenius Kinetics
Lecanemab | Grade: MARGINAL (3-6 months) | Dominant: Drug leakage | ICH Q1A standard
105d
t90 Shelf-Life
MARGINAL
Quality Grade
Drug leakage
Main Degradation
H17 · Glymphatic Clearance — Sleep/Wake Cycle Animation
Lecanemab | t½ waking=12.4h | ECM binding=0.74 | GOOD: particle size > ECM pore -- extended CNS retention

Purple bands = sleep (00:00–08:00), 3.5× faster clearance (Xie 2013, Science). ECM binding index 0.74: particles trapped in ECM — extended retention.

H05 · DDS Ranking Dashboard — Top 20 Formulations
Ranked by Composite Score (Drug+DDS biophysics combined)
#1 Tf-PEG-Liposome
H10 · Regression Docking — Composite Score vs BBB Enhancement
Lecanemab | All 8 DDS formulations | Hover for details
H11 · Efficiency Heatmap — DDS × Performance Matrix
Lecanemab | Top 8 DDS | Normalized 0-1 (green=high, red=low)
H13 · DDS Comparison Radar — Top-5 Formulations
Multi-dimensional comparison across key biophysical metrics (all metrics scaled to 0-100)
H06 · DLVO Colloidal Stability — Potential Energy Curve
liposome | Zeta=-25.0 mV | Size=105 nm | V_total=8.9 kT | ⚠️ UNSTABLE
8.9 kT
V_total (>25kT = stable)
-25.0 mV
Zeta Potential
UNSTABLE
Colloidal Status

DLVO theory: V_total = V_vdW (attraction) + V_EDL (electrostatic repulsion). Threshold 25kT prevents aggregation in blood. Debye length = 0.78 nm (physiological ionic strength).

H07 · SHAP Explainability — DDS Score Waterfall
Lecanemab | Tf-PEG-Liposome | Composite Score = 100.0

SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) shows contribution of each feature to the final score. Green = positive contribution. Red = negative. Based on gradient boosted ensemble model.

H12 · Off-Target QSAR Heatmap — 50-Receptor Panel
Lecanemab | 8 high-risk targets | HIGH RISK -- 8 off-target hits
8
High-Risk Targets
Cardiac Safety
Hepatic Safety
H18 · Microglial Activation — Neuroinflammation Risk
Lecanemab | Score=0.104 | LOW -- safe for CNS application
10%
Neuro-inflammation Score
2.0×
IL-6 fold-change
1.8×
TNF-α fold-change
0.050
TLR2/4 score

→ Increase PEGylation to 5-10 mol% for complement evasion

H15 · Synthetic Clinical Trial — N=500 Virtual Patients
Lecanemab | Monte Carlo simulation | Pharmacogenomics-adjusted
NO-GO / REFORMULATE
Go/No-Go Decision
26.0%
Overall Response Rate
1.07 mg/kg
Optimal Dose
29.4%
Young Adults (<65)
24.9%
Elderly (>65)
0.0%
Severe AE (<5% = GO)
H16 · CEREBRO-X Capability Radar — 50 Active Science Modules
Lecanemab | 8 capability dimensions across all 62 science module outputs
Capability DimensionScoreModules Active
BBB Engineering85%
PK Prediction95%
Safety Screening90%
Manufacturing85%
Regulatory (FDA)90%
Clinical Translation80%
IP & Economics85%
Stability90%
50
Active modules / 62 total science points
H20 · Bootstrap Validation — 95% Confidence Intervals
1000 resamples of each formulation's 8 real principle-group scores | Uncertainty quantification for score ranking
H21 · Drug Problems → DDS Solutions Mapping — Lecanemab
Automatically identified delivery barriers and how the DDS resolves each
SeverityProblem IdentifiedEvidenceDDS SolutionExpected Outcome
CRITICAL Large molecular weight -- passive BBB diffusion impossible MW = 13.1 kDa (Lipinski Rule 5 limit: 500 Da for passive) liposome encapsulation (75% EE) Active transcytosis delivers 10.0% paylo
H19 · Lyophilization Cycle Optimizer
Lecanemab | Tg'=-30.0°C | Primary drying=-32.0°C | Total=41h | OK: Tg within safe margin
StepSetting
Freezing-50°C @ 1°C/min
Primary drying-32°C, 0.148 mbar
Secondary drying+25°C, 0.05 mbar
Tg' safety margin-2.0°C above Tg'
Cake collapse riskOK: Tg within safe margin
41h
Total cycle time
-30°C
Tg' (glass transition)
H22 · LNP Ionization State — pH-Dependent Charge Curve
pKa = 5.8 | Optimal ionizable lipid pKa = 5.8 (suboptimal -- target pKa 6.0-6.8 for endosoma
pHIonized FractionZeta (mV)State
4.50.94736.5 mVCationic (endosomal escape mode)
5.50.64016.6 mVCationic (endosomal escape mode)
6.50.151-15.2 mVNear-neutral (stealth circulation mode)
7.40.022-23.6 mVNear-neutral (stealth circulation mode)
8.00.006-24.6 mVNear-neutral (stealth circulation mode)
H24 · Cryo-Chain Thermal Excursion — Lecanemab
Lipid phase transition thermodynamics | Arrhenius leakage model | Koynova 1998
RELEASE BATCH
Batch Decision
75.0% → 75.0%
EE Before → After
0.0%
Lipid Melted

Excursion Temperature: -20°C for 4h
Lipid Tm: 42°C
ΔT above Tm: -62.0°C
Leakage rate: 0.000009 /h
Analytical check: Re-test DLS particle size + HPLC drug content before release

H26 · FUS-Responsive Nanocarrier — Acoustic BBB Opening
Lecanemab | 0.5 MHz | MI=0.40 | BBB open 42 min | Inject 105 nm DDS 5 min before FUS. FUS opens BBB for 42 min. Predicted 58% enha
0.5 MHz
FUS Frequency
0.40
Mechanical Index
283 kPa
Negative Pressure
42 min
BBB Open Window
58%
FUS-Enhanced Uptake
30%
Standard BBB Enh.

FUS + microbubbles open BBB via stable cavitation (MI 0.3-0.5). Inertial cavitation (MI>0.8) = irreversible damage. Carrier injected 5 min before FUS for optimal uptake.

Structural integrity: OK

H23 · In-Silico Biodistribution — Organ Map
Lecanemab | CNS/off-target ratio = 0.0125 | No animal studies needed (3R principle)

🧬 All 62 Principles — Unified Scoreboard (Top-1 DDS)

For Lecanemab, the Top-1 DDS achieved a composite score of 61.8/100 (ACCEPTABLE). Below are the CNS group rollups followed by the FULL 62-principle scoreboard covering all three pipeline classes:  A (Surrogate)  B (Deep)  C (Translational)

CNS Principle Group Rollups

G1 CNS Delivery: 49.3/100
G2 Release Kinetics: 34.8/100
G3 Stability: 60.0/100
G4 Safety: 71.4/100
G5 Glymphatic BBB: 65.0/100
G6 Manufacturability: 56.0/100
G7 DrugDDS Fit: 67.5/100
G8 Translational: 0.0/100

All 62 Principles (P01 → P62)

P# Class Title Score Conf. Method Reference
P01AAdversarial Stress-Testing Engine64.2MODERATEMean of 6 stress scenarios (pH4.5, pH2, pH8.5, 42°C, complement, oxidation); each sceAnchordoquy TJ et al (2017) ACS Nano 11:12
P02ACross-Species PK Scaling (Allometric)60.0MODERATEBW^0.75 scaling + class-specific adjustmentMahmood I (2007) Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 32
P03ACompetitive DDS Landscape Radar100.0LOWNovelty = 100 - frequency_of_combo_in_CNS_trials, modified by whether the drug's LogPClinicalTrials.gov landscape
P04AQuantum Coherence Transport Model50.0LOWMW ≥ 500 Da → tunneling negligibleCao J et al (2020) Sci Adv 6:eaaz4888
P05AIn-Silico Patient Subgroup Stratifier100.0MODERATE% subgroups responding (lower CYP risk = more universal)Whirl-Carrillo M et al (2012) Clin Pharmacol Ther
P06ALysosomal Trafficking Predictor50.0MODERATECarrier endosomal_escape ⊕ drug-passive permeation at pH 5.5; drug-passive = LogP-driSmith SA et al (2019) Trends Biotechnol 37:1077
P07AReal-Time Literature Mining (PubMed)100.0LOWlog-count proxy of literature supportNCBI E-utilities — heuristic (no live fetch in sur
P08ADegradation Kinetics Under Oxidative Stress28.0MODERATEArrhenius k=A·exp(-Ea/RT) for carrier; minus penalties for drug-side oxidation-prone Halliwell B & Gutteridge JMC (2015) Free Radicals
P09ADigital Pharmacovigilance Engine85.0MODERATE100 - sum(metabolite organ accumulation risks)Djoumbou-Feunang Y et al (2019) J Cheminform 11:2
P10ALNP Ionization State Predictor63.7MODERATELipid Henderson-Hasselbalch ionization at endosomal pH 5.5, modulated by drug charge-Hafez IM et al (2001) Adv Drug Deliv Rev 47:139; A
P11AFormulation Instability Fingerprint100.0MODERATE100 - sum(weak-bond penalties from SMILES)Luo YR (2007) Comprehensive Handbook of BDE
P12ACNS Disease-Stage-Aware Dosing74.5MODERATEScore = 100·BBB_integrity_factor × (0.4 + 0.6·CNS-MPO/6) + targeting_boost (larger boSweeney MD et al (2018) Nat Rev Neurol 14:133; Wag
P13APBPK Digital Twin3.4MODERATEAUC_brain/AUC_plasma proxy; 3-compartment surrogateHammarlund-Udenaes M et al (2008) Pharm Res 25:173
P14AIn-silico Dissolution & Release Profile0.6MODERATEt50 from carrier kinetics × drug-membrane partition factor (10^logK_mem); HBD-anchoriCosta P & Lobo JM (2001) Eur J Pharm Sci 13:123; H
P15AShelf-life & Degradation Predictor46.2MODERATEArrhenius baseline × (0.7 + 0.3·EE) × drug_hydrolysis_factor (0.08 penalty per hydrolKennon L (1964) J Pharm Sci 53:815; ICH Q1A(R2)
P16AScale-up & Manufacturability20.0MODERATEScale-readiness × shear-robustness, minus drug-processability penalties (MW, HBD-crysam Ende DJ (2011) Chemical Engineering in Pharma I
P17ANanotoxicity & Immunogenicity Screening13.0MODERATEMean of (hemolysis penalized by drug net+ charge, complement penalized for biologics,Nel A et al (2006) Science 311:622
P18AActive Targeting & Receptor Binding81.5HIGHLigand-affinity table × density × drug-compatibility (receptor-pathway-specific drug Pardridge WM (2020) Fluids Barriers CNS 17:62
P19AQbD - Quality by Design Engine100.0MODERATEFraction of CQAs (size, zeta, EE, PDI, drug-loading) within ICH spec — 5th CQA dependICH Q8(R2) Pharmaceutical Development; Bunjes H (2
P20ACost-Efficiency Engine0.0LOWScore = 100 - 3·($/mg estimate, drug+carrier+ligand+API). Drug API cost from stereoceCost-of-goods analysis (Pharm Eng J 2019); Walsh G
P21CPre-IND Regulatory Reports0.0skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
P22AProtein Corona Predictor2.0MODERATE100 × exp(-corona_thickness/10); thickness from carrier (|zeta|, size) + drug-side (LTenzer S et al (2013) Nat Nanotechnol 8:772; Schöt
P23ADynamic Crystal Polymorphism80.0MODERATE100 - polymorph risk (rot_bonds + H-bond pattern)Bernstein J (2020) Polymorphism in Molecular Cryst
P24AShear-Stress & Scale-Up Collapse14.3MODERATElog10(crit_shear/operating_shear) × 30; crit_shear softened by drug-load for lipid caMaa YF & Hsu CC (1996) Biotechnol Bioeng 51:458; B
P25AExtractables & Leachables100.0MODERATE100 - leachables risk by drug LogP × carrierUSP <1663>/<1664>
P26AMicrobiome-Excipient Interactions83.0MODERATE100 - mean_microbiome_degradability(carrier) - drug-side risk (anionic-fraction, polaZimmermann M et al (2019) Nature 570:462
P27ALyophilization Cycle Optimizer55.0MODERATE100 - (|Tg'| - 5) × 1.5Pikal MJ (2002) Pharmaceutical Lyophilization
P28A3D-Printed Polypill Rheology40.0MODERATECarrier-specific printability indexTrenfield SJ et al (2019) Adv Drug Deliv Rev 138:1
P29ABiomimetic & Exosome Engineering65.0MODERATEStealth-from-macrophage score; PEG ≥5% boostHu CMJ et al (2011) PNAS 108:10980
P30AQM/MM Stimuli-Responsive Cleavage45.0MODERATEScore = 50 × |7.4 - pH_trigger|Senn HM & Thiel W (2009) Angew Chem Int Ed 48:1198
P31AIn-Silico Biodistribution2.0MODERATEbrain% = BBB · ligand · size_match · 100; 100 if ≥5%Wilhelm S et al (2016) Nat Rev Mater 1:16014
P32CAutomated FTO & IP Evader0.0skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
P33ABBB Quantum Breaker (Trojan-Horse Design)58.2MODERATE(0.6·ligand + 0.4·size) × density_factorPardridge WM (2020) Fluids Barriers CNS 17:62
P34ADNA Logic Gates & Bio-computing15.0MODERATEDNA-based carriers score highDouglas SM et al (2012) Science 335:831
P35AMicrogravity Formulation Engine100.0LOWSedimentation-Péclet proxy; smaller = betterReichert B et al (2019) NPJ Microgravity 5:18
P36AGeopolitical Supply-Chain Resilience85.0MODERATESupplier-diversity index by carrier + ligandFDA Drug Shortage analysis
P37AEco-Destructible Pharma90.0MODERATEBiodegradability index by carrier classBoxall ABA (2004) EMBO Rep 5:1110
P38AGlymphatic Clearance Trap100.0MODERATEStokes-Einstein: optimum 80-150 nmIliff JJ et al (2012) Sci Transl Med 4:147ra111
P39AMicroglial Activation & Neuroinflammation100.0MODERATE100 - (cationic_charge + carrier_risk - PEG_protection)Hickman SE et al (2018) Nat Neurosci 21:1359
P40AIntranasal-to-Brain Delivery55.0MODERATEMucoadhesion + thermo-responsive boostIllum L (2003) J Pharm Pharmacol 56:3
P41AExosome Cargo Loading Thermodynamics40.0LOWNot an exosome carrier — N/AAlvarez-Erviti L et al (2011) Nat Biotechnol 29:34
P42ARegion-Specific Spatiotemporal Navigation70.0MODERATELigand-region specificity tableNutt DJ & Need AC (2014) Lancet Psychiatry 1:78
P43AFUS-Responsive Nanocarriers40.0MODERATEFUS-response by carrier acoustic propertiesHynynen K & Jolesz FA (1998) Ultrasound Med Biol 2
P44ACNS-Specific PBPK Time-Machine4.8MODERATEAUC over 24h therapeutic window proxyBies RR et al (2019) Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 59
P45CFDA 21 CFR Part 11 Compliance0.0skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
P46APolypharmacy & DDI Simulator100.0MODERATECYP-inhibition heuristic from SMILESJamei M et al (2009) Br J Clin Pharmacol 67:472
P47BFree Energy Perturbation (FEP+)72.0LOWVina-like ΔG proxy from MW + LogP (deep mode runs full FEP+)Wang L et al (2015) JACS 137:2695
P48AOff-Target Toxicity & QSAR (50-receptor)100.0MODERATE50-receptor QSAR surrogate (hERG, 5HT2B, AhR risks)Bowes J et al (2012) Nat Rev Drug Discov 11:909
P49AOrgan-on-a-Chip Simulator80.0MODERATEMicrofluidic compatibility (size + PDI)Bhatia SN & Ingber DE (2014) Nat Biotechnol 32:760
P50ACryo-Chain Thermal Excursion Predictor71.5MODERATEDistance from -20°C phase transition × 1.3Crommelin DJA et al (2021) Int J Pharm 593:120163
P51ATerminal Sterilization Survivability50.0MODERATECarrier gamma-radiation survival (25 kGy)Reid BD (1995) J Pharm Sci Technol 49:83
P52AContinuous Manufacturing Digital Twin85.0MODERATEContinuous-process readiness by carrierLee SL et al (2015) J Pharm Innov 10:191
P53ADark Data & Negative Results Vault100.0MODERATESimilarity-to-documented-failureBegley CG & Ellis LM (2012) Nature 483:531
P54APharmacogenomic-Guided Targeting90.0MODERATEClass-based pharmacogenomic applicabilityWhirl-Carrillo M et al (2012) Clin Pharmacol Ther
P55CAutomated Grant & NIH Proposal Generator0.0skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
P56CPatentability Score Engine0.0skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
P57AMicrofluidics & LNP Synthesis Digital Twin90.0MODERATEMicrofluidic readiness for size 50-150 nmBelliveau NM et al (2012) Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 1
P58AImpurity Cascade Predictor90.0MODERATECarrier residual-metals impurity profileICH Q3D Elemental Impurities
P59A4D Shape-Shifting Carriers30.0MODERATEStimuli-responsive bonus by release kineticsStuart MAC et al (2010) Nat Mater 9:101
P60ASwarm Nanorobotics Intelligence15.0LOWSwarm capability (most carriers: no)Servant A et al (2015) Sci Robot 1:eaaq1155
P61ASynthetic Clinical Trials & Virtual Humans30.6MODERATEVirtual-cohort responder fractionPolasek TM & Rostami-Hodjegan A (2020) AAPS J 22:9
P62ABiobetter / Supergeneric Generator40.0LOWNovelty distance from on-market CNS DDSEkins S et al (2019) Drug Discov Today 24:2104

Tf-PEG-Liposome: composite CNS-principle score = 61.8/100 (ACCEPTABLE). Carrier: liposome, size 0.0 nm, ζ +0.0 mV, ligand: Transferrin. Strongest group: G4 Safety (71.4/100); weakest: G8 Translational (0.0/100). Evaluated against all 57 Class A surrogate principles.

🔬 H28 — Class B Deep Physics Validation (Top-1 DDS)

Verdict: FAILED   |   12/28 principles validated (42.9% — threshold 70%)

Combined score (surrogate pass-through + real physics): 12/28 principles scored PASSED (42.9%). Of these, only 7/28 principles ran independent deep computation (passed 3/7 = 42.9%); the rest re-used their Class-A surrogate score pending a future full-physics HPC run. Cite independent_pct, not pct, as evidence of physics-based validation.

PrincipleValidatedScoreValue ConfidenceMethodNarrative
P0164.264.17MODERATEFull MD stress simulation — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full MD stress simulation: surrogate score 64.17 PASSED. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P0265.02444.16LOWMulti-parameter allometric scaling (Mahmood 2007): half-life ∝ BW^0.25, clearance ∝ BW^0.75, volume Predicted human t½ = 2444.2h (scaled from 336.0h mouse), clearance scales by 384.9×, volume by 2800.0×. Drug type: monoclonal_antibody.
P0450.050LOWFull QM tunneling (QCElemental + ASE) — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full QM tunneling (QCElemental + ASE): surrogate score 50 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P0828.028.0LOWFull radical-chain reaction MD — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full radical-chain reaction MD: surrogate score 28.0 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P1063.763.68MODERATEConstant-pH MD simulation — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Constant-pH MD simulation: surrogate score 63.68 PASSED. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P11100.0100MODERATEDFT bond dissociation energies — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)DFT bond dissociation energies: surrogate score 100.0 PASSED. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P1274.574.5MODERATEStage-specific PBPK with full BBB physiology — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Stage-specific PBPK with full BBB physiology: surrogate score 74.5 PASSED. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P1323.00.0115MODERATE3-compartment PBPK ODE (scipy.integrate.odeint): blood ⇌ brain ⇌ peripheral, 24h time course. k_bb_iBrain AUC = 4.12 units·h, plasma AUC = 358.06 units·h, ratio = 0.0115. Cmax_brain = 0.21 at t = 8.0h. BELOW THRESHOLD AUC ratio.
P1620.020LOWCFD of 1000L bioreactor — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)CFD of 1000L bioreactor: surrogate score 20 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P18100.0-10.5HIGHMM/GBSA-style ΔG estimate from validated ligand-receptor Kd database. Full atomistic docking deferreLigand 'transferrin' → receptor 'TfR1', ΔG = -10.5 kcal/mol. STRONG BBB-targeting.
P2380.080.0MODERATECSP via DFT — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)CSP via DFT: surrogate score 80.0 PASSED. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P2414.314.31LOWFull CFD + MD coupling — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full CFD + MD coupling: surrogate score 14.31 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P2965.065MODERATEFull membrane-fusion MD — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full membrane-fusion MD: surrogate score 65 PASSED. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P3045.045.0LOWFull QM/MM (PySCF or ORCA) — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full QM/MM (PySCF or ORCA): surrogate score 45.0 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P31100.00.1MODERATE7-organ whole-body distribution with size + charge + ligand-status modifiers.Brain uptake = 0.10%, liver = 16.3%, spleen = 7.8%. INSUFFICIENT BRAIN UPTAKE.
P3358.258.2LOWAtomistic docking + SMD pulling — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Atomistic docking + SMD pulling: surrogate score 58.2 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P3899.212.6HIGHStokes-Einstein D = k_B·T/(6πηr) at 37°C, η_CSF = 7×10⁻⁴ Pa·s. Brain residence scaled to 50-nm referD_CSF = 6.18 µm²/s, brain residence ≈ 12.6h. IDEAL (target 6-48h).
P4055.055LOWFull nasal cavity CFD — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full nasal cavity CFD: surrogate score 55 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P4140.040LOWFull membrane mechanics MD — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full membrane mechanics MD: surrogate score 40 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P4340.040LOWFull acoustic radiation force MD — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full acoustic radiation force MD: surrogate score 40 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P440.00.0MODERATE4-compartment CNS-PBPK ODE with glymphatic clearance: Blood ⇌ Brain_ECF → CSF → Blood. Stokes-EinsteTherapeutic window = 0.0h (brain ≥ 5% dose). Brain AUC = 5.1, Cmax = 0.29. NEEDS DOSE INCREASE.
P4773.8-6.71LOW — LIE approximation onlyLIE approximation (fallback — Vina unavailable)Predicted ΔG_binding = -6.71 kcal/mol (LIE approximation (fallback — Vina unavailable)). MODERATE affinity.
P5071.571.5MODERATEFull coarse-grained MD lipid phase transition — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferredFull coarse-grained MD lipid phase transition: surrogate score 71.5 PASSED. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P5150.050LOWFull radical-chain damage MD — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full radical-chain damage MD: surrogate score 50 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P5790.090MODERATEFull CFD of mixer geometry — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full CFD of mixer geometry: surrogate score 90 PASSED. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P5890.090MODERATEFull QM/MM cascade simulation — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full QM/MM cascade simulation: surrogate score 90 PASSED. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P5930.030LOWFull coarse-grained MD morphological transition — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferrFull coarse-grained MD morphological transition: surrogate score 30 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.
P6130.631.0LOWFull Monte-Carlo population PBPK — surrogate value confirmed (full-physics HPC deferred)Full Monte-Carlo population PBPK: surrogate score 30.6 NEEDS REVIEW. Full deep simulation requires external HPC.

📋 H29 — Class C Translational Deliverables (Top-1 DDS)

Translational outputs for Lecanemab's validated Top-1 DDS. These are NOT used for ranking — they are administrative deliverables triggered only AFTER deep physics validation passes.

P21: Pre-IND Outline

Status: skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
Score:

Deep validation passed only 12/28 principles. Translational deliverables withheld until a higher-ranked DDS passes deep validation.

P32: Freedom-to-Operate

Status: skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
Score:

Deep validation passed only 12/28 principles. Translational deliverables withheld until a higher-ranked DDS passes deep validation.

P45: 21 CFR Part 11

Status: skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
Score:

Deep validation passed only 12/28 principles. Translational deliverables withheld until a higher-ranked DDS passes deep validation.

P55: Grant Outline

Status: skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
Score:

Deep validation passed only 12/28 principles. Translational deliverables withheld until a higher-ranked DDS passes deep validation.

P56: Patentability

Status: skipped_deep_validation_insufficient
Score:

Deep validation passed only 12/28 principles. Translational deliverables withheld until a higher-ranked DDS passes deep validation.

🔁 H30 — Top-N Fallback Audit Trail

For Lecanemab: each candidate DDS that was tried in the Class B deep validation phase. If the Top-1 fails the 70% threshold, we fall back to Top-2, then Top-3 — with explicit reasons recorded.

RankDDSSurrogateVerdict Promoted?Failure ReasonTransition Reason
#1 Tf-PEG-Liposome 61.77 FAILED
42.9% (12/28)
Deep validation FAILED: only 12/28 principles validated (42.9%, threshold 70%). Critical failures: P04, P08, P13, P16, P24. Falling back to rank #2 because deep physics showed insufficient evidence for this DDS.
#2 RVG29-Liposome-pH 61.29 FAILED
42.9% (12/28)
Deep validation FAILED: only 12/28 principles validated (42.9%, threshold 70%). Critical failures: P04, P08, P13, P16, P24. Falling back to rank #3 because deep physics showed insufficient evidence for this DDS.
#3 AAV9-vector 52.75 FAILED
32.1% (9/28)
Deep validation FAILED: only 9/28 principles validated (32.1%, threshold 70%). Critical failures: P04, P08, P12, P13, P16. No more candidates in Top-3 — reverting to rank #1 and reporting with FAILED verdict. Researcher should reformulate.