A new approach examines how individual cells respond to drugs, aiming to identify risks earlier in development.
Updated
April 15, 2026 6:01 PM
Close up of a capsule blister pack. PHOTO: UNSPLASH
DeepCyte, a startup in the drug development space, is focusing on a long-standing problem: why drugs that appear safe in early testing still fail in clinical trials or are withdrawn later due to toxicity. DeepCyte has launched with US$1.5 million in seed funding to build tools that detect and explain the harmful effects of drugs at much earlier stages.
The startup’s approach focuses on how individual cells respond to a drug. Instead of analysing cells in bulk, it studies them one by one. This helps capture differences in how cells react, which are often missed in traditional testing methods.
Drug toxicity remains one of the main reasons for failure in drug development. Methods such as animal testing and bulk cell analysis do not always reflect how human cells behave. This gap has pushed the industry to look for more reliable and human-relevant ways to test drug safety.
DeepCyte combines cell-level data with artificial intelligence. Its platform, MetaCore, studies what is happening inside individual cells by capturing detailed molecular information. This data is used to build large datasets that can train AI models.
Additionally, the company has developed an AI system called DeeImmuno. It is designed to predict whether a drug could be toxic and identify the biological reasons behind it. In internal testing on 100 drugs, the system identified different types of toxicity and their underlying mechanisms with a reported accuracy of 94 percent.
The focus on explaining why a drug is toxic, not just whether it is, reflects a broader shift in the industry. Regulators such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have been encouraging methods that rely more on human cell data and clearer biological evidence. The seed funding will be used to develop and scale these tools. The company aims to help drug developers make earlier decisions, which could reduce costly failures in later stages. Whether tools like this become widely used will depend on how they perform in real-world settings. For now, DeepCyte’s approach highlights a growing effort to make drug testing more precise by focusing on how drugs affect cells at the most detailed level.
Keep Reading
HKU professor apologizes after PhD student’s AI-assisted paper cites fabricated sources.
Updated
January 8, 2026 6:33 PM
.jpg)
The University of Hong Kong in Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong Island. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
It’s no surprise that artificial intelligence, while remarkably capable, can also go astray—spinning convincing but entirely fabricated narratives. From politics to academia, AI’s “hallucinations” have repeatedly shown how powerful technology can go off-script when left unchecked.
Take Grok-2, for instance. In July 2024, the chatbot misled users about ballot deadlines in several U.S. states, just days after President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid against former President Donald Trump. A year earlier, a U.S. lawyer found himself in court for relying on ChatGPT to draft a legal brief—only to discover that the AI tool had invented entire cases, citations and judicial opinions. And now, the academic world has its own cautionary tale.
Recently, a journal paper from the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong was found to contain fabricated citations—sources apparently created by AI. The paper, titled “Forty Years of Fertility Transition in Hong Kong,” analyzed the decline in Hong Kong’s fertility rate over the past four decades. Authored by doctoral student Yiming Bai, along with Yip Siu-fai, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and other university officials, the study identified falling marriage rates as a key driver behind the city’s shrinking birth rate. The authors recommended structural reforms to make Hong Kong’s social and work environment more family-friendly.
But the credibility of the paper came into question when inconsistencies surfaced among its references. Out of 61 cited works, some included DOI (Digital Object Identifier) links that led to dead ends, displaying “DOI Not Found.” Others claimed to originate from academic journals, yet searches yielded no such publications.
Speaking to HK01, Yip acknowledged that his student had used AI tools to organize the citations but failed to verify the accuracy of the generated references. “As the corresponding author, I bear responsibility”, Yip said, apologizing for the damage caused to the University of Hong Kong and the journal’s reputation. He clarified that the paper itself had undergone two rounds of verification and that its content was not fabricated—only the citations had been mishandled.
Yip has since contacted the journal’s editor, who accepted his explanation and agreed to re-upload a corrected version in the coming days. A formal notice addressing the issue will also be released. Yip said he would personally review each citation “piece by piece” to ensure no errors remain.
As for the student involved, Yip described her as a diligent and high-performing researcher who made an honest mistake in her first attempt at using AI for academic assistance. Rather than penalize her, Yip chose a more constructive approach, urging her to take a course on how to use AI tools responsibly in academic research.
Ultimately, in an age where generative AI can produce everything from essays to legal arguments, there are two lessons to take away from this episode. First, AI is a powerful assistant, but only that. The final judgment must always rest with us. No matter how seamless the output seems, cross-checking and verifying information remain essential. Second, as AI becomes integral to academic and professional life, institutions must equip students and employees with the skills to use it responsibly. Training and mentorship are no longer optional; they’re the foundation for using AI to enhance, not undermine, human work.
Because in this age of intelligent machines, staying relevant isn’t about replacing human judgment with AI, it’s about learning how to work alongside it.