Sélectivité fonctionnelle des ligands des récepteurs opiacés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opiates are the most effective analgesics available for the treatment of severe pain. However, their clinical use is restricted by unwanted side effects such as tolerance, physical dependence and respiratory depression. The strategy to develop new opiates with reduced side effects has mainly focused on the study and production of ligands that specifically bind to different opiate receptors subtypes. However, this strategy has not allowed the production of novel therapeutic ligands with a better side effects profile. Thus, other research strategies need to be explored. One which is receiving increasing attention is the possibility of exploiting ligand ability to stabilize different receptor conformations with distinct signalling profiles. This newly described property, termed functional selectivity, provides a potential means of directing the stimulus generated by an activated receptor towards a specific cellular response. Here we summarize evidence supporting the existence of ligand-specific active conformations for two opioid receptors subtypes (delta and mu), and analyze how functional selectivity may contribute in the production of longer lasting, better tolerated opiate analgesics. double dagger.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".