Integrated Project Views: Decision Support Platform for Drug Discovery Project Teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug discovery teams continuously have to decide which compounds to progress and which experiments to perform next, but the data required to make informed decisions is often scattered, inaccessible, or inconsistent. In particular, data tend to be stored and represented in a compound-centric or assay-centric manner rather than project-centric as often needed for effective use in drug discovery teams. The Integrated Project Views (IPV) system has been created to fill this gap; it integrates and consolidates data from various sources in a project-oriented manner. Its automatic gathering and updating of project data not only ensures that the information is comprehensive and available on a timely basis, but also improves the data consistency. Due to the lack of suitable off-the-shelf solutions, we were prompted to develop custom functionality and algorithms geared specifically to our drug discovery decision making process. In 10 years of usage, the resulting IPV application has become very well-accepted and appreciated, which is perhaps best evidenced by the observation that standalone Excel spreadsheets are largely eliminated from project team meetings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".