Prostanoid receptor antagonists: development strategies and therapeutic applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of the primary products of cyclo-oxygenase (COX)/prostaglandin synthase(s), which occurred between 1958 and 1976, was followed by a classification system for prostanoid receptors (DP, EP(1), EP(2) ...) based mainly on the pharmacological actions of natural and synthetic agonists and a few antagonists. The design of potent selective antagonists was rapid for certain prostanoid receptors (EP(1), TP), slow for others (FP, IP) and has yet to be achieved in certain cases (EP(2)). While some antagonists are structurally related to the natural agonist, most recent compounds are 'non-prostanoid' (often acyl-sulphonamides) and have emerged from high-throughput screening of compound libraries, made possible by the development of (functional) assays involving single recombinant prostanoid receptors. Selective antagonists have been crucial to defining the roles of PGD(2) (acting on DP(1) and DP(2) receptors) and PGE(2) (on EP(1) and EP(4) receptors) in various inflammatory conditions; there are clear opportunities for therapeutic intervention. The vast endeavour on TP (thromboxane) antagonists is considered in relation to their limited pharmaceutical success in the cardiovascular area. Correspondingly, the clinical utility of IP (prostacyclin) antagonists is assessed in relation to the cloud hanging over the long-term safety of selective COX-2 inhibitors. Aspirin apart, COX inhibitors broadly suppress all prostanoid pathways, while high selectivity has been a major goal in receptor antagonist development; more targeted therapy may require an intermediate position with defined antagonist selectivity profiles. This review is intended to provide overviews of each antagonist class (including prostamide antagonists), covering major development strategies and current and potential clinical usage.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it