MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516646538 · doi:10.1038/nchembio.1867

The promise and peril of chemical probes

2015· article· en· W1516646538 on OpenAlexafffund
C.H. Arrowsmith, James E. Audia, Christopher P. Austin, Jonathan B. Baell, Jonathan P. Bennett, Julian Blagg, C. Bountra, Paul E. Brennan, Peter J. Brown, Mark E. Bunnage, Carolyn Buser‐Doepner, Adrian J. Carter, Philip Cohen, Robert A. Copeland, Ben Cravatt, Jayme L. Dahlin, Dashyant Dhanak, A.M. Edwards, Mathias Frederiksen, Stephen V. Frye, Nathanael S. Gray, Charles E. Grimshaw, David Hepworth, Trevor Howe, K. Huber, Jian Jin, Stefan Knapp, Joanne Kotz, Ryan G. Kruger, Derek Lowe, Mary M. Mader, Brian D. Marsden, Anke Mueller‐Fahrnow, Susanne Müller, Rónán C. O’Hagan, John P. Overington, Dafydd R. Owen, Saul H. Rosenberg, Ruth A. Ross, Bryan L. Roth, Matthieu Schapira, Stuart L. Schreiber, Brian K. Shoichet, M. Sundström, Giulio Superti-Furga, Jack Taunton, Leticia Toledo‐Sherman, Chris Walpole, Michael A. Walters, Timothy M. Willson, Paul Workman, Robert N. Young, William J. Zuercher

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Chemical Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicClick Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoSimon Fraser UniversityStructural Genomics ConsortiumPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMedical Research CouncilNovartis Institutes for BioMedical ResearchUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillJanssen Research and DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of TorontoHarvard UniversityÖsterreichischen Akademie der WissenschaftenMonash UniversityCancer Research UKNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesWellcome TrustGlaxoSmithKlineConstellation PharmaceuticalsEli Lilly and CompanyUniversity of DundeeUniversity of OxfordPfizer
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceData scienceResource (disambiguation)Risk analysis (engineering)BusinessEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical probes are powerful reagents with increasing impacts on biomedical research. However, probes of poor quality or that are used incorrectly generate misleading results. To help address these shortcomings, we will create a community-driven wiki resource to improve quality and convey current best practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.034
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0080.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations850
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Chemical BiologySame topicClick Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207