Oligo Safety Working Group Exaggerated Pharmacology Subcommittee Consensus Document
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document summarizes the current consensus opinion of the Exaggerated Pharmacology (EP) Subcommittee of the Oligonucleotide Safety Working Group on the appropriate strategies to assess potential adverse effects caused by an "exaggerated" degree of the intended pharmacologic activity of an oligonucleotide (ON). The Subcommittee focused its discussions primarily on the ON subclasses that impact expression of "host" (i.e., human gene products--antisense, small interfering RNAs, and related ONs that target messenger RNA), with later and more limited discussions on aptamer, immunostimulatory, and microRNA subclasses. It is expected that many of these principles will be relevant to other subclasses but will need to be carefully considered as those development programs advance towards clinical trials. The recommendations may also serve as a frame of reference when designing Good Laboratory Practice safety studies with ONs, with regard to the study design elements that address assessment of EP. It is also hoped that these recommendations will establish a foundation for discussion with regulatory agencies on this subject.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.122 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".