MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1581598399 · doi:10.1002/9783527652969.ch12

To Kill a Mocking Worm: Strategies to Improve <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i> as a Model System for use in Anthelmintic Discovery

2012· other· en· W1581598399 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew R. Burns, Peter J. Roy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaenorhabditis elegansBiologyAnthelminticModel organismNematodeCaenorhabditisComputational biologyDrug discoveryXenobioticResistance (ecology)EcologyBioinformaticsGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nematode Caenorhabditis elegans can be a powerful model system for the discovery and characterization of new anthelmintics. C. elegans is free-living and its use therefore circumvents the complications of culturing parasitic nematodes that are invariably dependent on a host to complete their life cycle. C. elegans is also small (1 mm in length), hermaphroditic, and has a 3-day life cycle. These features make C. elegans a seemingly ideal high-throughput platform with which to discover novel anthelmintics. However, C. elegans has formidable xenobiotic defenses that have likely evolved to protect it from a plethora of chemical insults in its native environment. In this chapter, we will discuss the extent of C. elegans xenobiotic resistance and review strategies to circumvent this resistance in order to take full advantage of one of the most powerful animal models available.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms→French-language works237,207→