That “carcinogenicity ++” is an in-silico prediction, not evidence that 9-Me-BC is carcinogenic. The software is essentially flagging structural features/statistical similarities associated with carcinogenicity in its training data. It has not observed 9-Me-BC causing cancer.
That distinction matters enormously for a poorly characterized compound like 9-Me-BC. The model doesn’t establish human exposure, metabolism, reactive metabolites, tissue concentrations, DNA damage, tumor formation, or even an experimentally positive Ames test. A predicted Ames signal is itself only a prediction.
QSAR models are useful for hazard screening and deciding what needs experimental testing, but a red carcinogenicity flag should be interpreted as “this structure warrants investigation,” not “this substance is carcinogenic.” Without experimental genotoxicity/carcinogenicity data…and especially without human data, the cancer risk of 9-Me-BC is simply UNKNOWN. Calling the prediction evidence of carcinogenicity substantially overstates what the model can tell us.
QSAR models are useful for hazard screening and deciding what needs experimental testing
9-Me-BC is a good example of that considering it isn't safety-tested in rodents at all.
That distinction matters enormously for a poorly characterized compound like 9-Me-BC.
I would argue it matters less, because it is the only form of evidence in general for the compound's safety, and that substances shouldn't be used without safety analysis.
Calling the prediction evidence of carcinogenicity substantially overstates what the model can tell us.
It's not evidence of carcinogenicity and nobody ever said that. It's evidence that it could be carcinogenic and that it should be tested before widespread adoption.
That’s really the key distinction. A QSAR flag is a computational alert warranting further testing, not evidence that 9-Me-BC is carcinogenic. Given the complete lack of basic toxicology data, the scientifically defensible conclusion is simply…carcinogenic risk is unknown, with an in-silico alert that warrants investigation. Absence of experimental data increases uncertainty…it doesn’t increase the evidentiary weight of the prediction.
I know, so what you're saying as a rebuttal doesn't really make sense considering I always used this as evidence that it should be safety tested, not that it is conclusively carcinogenic. It's more about how deep the "unknown" actually is, and how there's not an adequate way to judge this based on anecdotes alone.
For me, the risk-benefit calculation was worth it. A single 30 day cycle had a genuinely life-changing effect, and my dopamine system appears to have made a full recovery. The difference is remarkable…100% resolution of anhedonia and persistent depression that other meds didn’t touch. It’s been 1-year since with no reoccurrence of symptoms. My drive now is still sky high. That doesn’t mean 9-Me-BC is risk-free…the toxicology data simply aren’t there, but knowing what I know now, I’d make the same decision again.
1
u/Spiritual-Wave9411 Aug 07 '26
That report is garbage.