REVIEW ARTICLE: APPLICATION OF CELL-BASED ASSAY SYSTEMS FOR THE EARLY SCREENING OF HUMAN DRUG HEPATOTOXICITY IN THE DISCOVERY PHASE OF DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While drug toxicity (especially hepatotoxicity) is the most frequent reason cited for withdrawal of an approved drug, no simple solution exists to adequately predict such adverse events. Simple cytotoxicity assays in HepG2 cells are relatively insensitive to human hepatotoxic drugs in a retrospective analysis of marketed pharmaceuticals. In comparison, a panel of pre-lethal mechanistic cellular assays hold the promise to deliver a more sensitive approach to detect endpoint-specific drug toxicities. The panel of assays covered by this review includes steatosis, cholestasis, phospholipidosis, reactive intermediates, mitochondria membrane function, oxidative stress, and drug interactions. In addition, the use of metabolically competent cells or the introduction of major human hepatocytes in these in-vitro studies allow a more complete picture of potential drug side effect. Since inter-individual therapeutic index (TI) may differ from patient to patient, the rational use of one or more of these cellular assay and targeted in-vivo exposure data may allow pharmaceutical scientists to select drug candidates with a higher TI potential in the drug discovery phase.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".