MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090993548 · doi:10.1002/ddr.20398

Pharmacophore inference and its application to computational drug discovery

2010· article· en· W2090993548 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Development Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacophoreDrug discoveryVirtual screeningComputational biologyComputer scienceDrugChemistryBioinformaticsBiologyPharmacologyStereochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pharmacophores are fundamental tools in the process of rational drug discovery. Pharmacophores are associated with binding sites of proteins and characterize the arrangement of chemical and physical features that govern the modes of interactions of different ligands within the binding sites. Methods designed to infer pharmacophores computationally have been successfully applied in drug discovery pipelines. Virtual high‐throughput screening (HTS), lead optimization, and de novo drug design are just a few areas in which pharmacophores are actively used. This review surveys different computational methods to elucidate pharmacophores and discuss their utilization in drug discovery applications. Drug Dev Res 72: 17–25, 2011. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.365 · 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