MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530222901 · doi:10.3390/antibiotics1010001

Classification Framework and Chemical Biology of Tetracycline-Structure-Based Drugs

2012· review· en· W1530222901 on OpenAlexaff
Domenico Fuoco

Bibliographic record

VenueAntibiotics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicClick Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntifungalInterchangeabilityComputational biologySchematicTetracyclineLipophilicityComputer scienceChemistryBiologyAntibioticsStereochemistryBiochemistryMicrobiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By studying the literature about tetracyclines (TCs), it becomes clearly evident that TCs are very dynamic molecules. In some cases, their structure-activity-relationship (SAR) are well known, especially against bacteria, while against other targets, they are virtually unknown. In other diverse fields of research-such as neurology, oncology and virology-the utility and activity of the tetracyclines are being discovered and are also emerging as new technological fronts. The first aim of this paper is to classify the compounds already used in therapy and prepare the schematic structure that includes the next generation of TCs. The second aim of this work is to introduce a new framework for the classification of old and new TCs, using a medicinal chemistry approach to the structure of those drugs. A fully documented Structure-Activity-Relationship (SAR) is presented with the analysis data of antibacterial and nonantibacterial (antifungal, antiviral and anticancer) tetracyclines. The lipophilicity and the conformational interchangeability of the functional groups are employed to develop the rules for TC biological activity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations134
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntibioticsSame topicClick Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207