MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077966075 · doi:10.2174/138620709788167953

Reverse Fingerprinting and Mutual Information-Based Activity Labeling and Scoring (MIBALS)

2009· review· en· W2077966075 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Williams, Suzanne K. Schreyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCombinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacophoreFragment (logic)Fingerprint (computing)Virtual screeningSimilarity (geometry)Ranking (information retrieval)Computer scienceComputational biologyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Data miningChemistryBiologyStereochemistryAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mutual information based activity labeling and scoring (MIBALS) approach to reverse fingerprint analysis is presented. Whole molecule scores produced by the method are shown to be capable of ranking compounds in virtual high-throughput screening (vHTS) experiments, while fragment scores produced by the method are able to identify pharmacophore moieties important for biological activity. The performance of MIBALS in vHTS experiments is assessed using reference ligands active against 40 different biological targets, and MIBALS retrieval rates are compared with those obtained using more traditional group fusion similarity search methods. The use of MIBALS to identify important pharmacophore fragments is demonstrated by comparing ligand fragment scores with known pharmacophores and known ligand/protein contacts. The ability of MIBALS to highlight beneficial and detrimental groups in a congeneric series is examined by comparing MIBALS fragment scores with features in known structure-activity relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCombinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput ScreeningSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207