MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110069072 · doi:10.1182/blood-2011-02-315283

New sources of drugs for hematologic malignancies

2011· review· en· W2110069072 on OpenAlexaff
Mahadeo A. Sukhai, Paul A. Spagnuolo, Scott J. Weir, James M. Kasper, Lavonne Patton, Aaron D. Schimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsRepurposingDrug repositioningDrugDrug discoveryClinical trialApproved drugDrug developmentInvestigational DrugsMedicinePharmacologyBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancing novel therapeutic agents for the treatment of malignancy into the marketplace is an increasingly costly and lengthy process. As such, new strategies for drug discovery are needed. Drug repurposing represents an opportunity to rapidly advance new therapeutic strategies into clinical trials at a relatively low cost. Known on-patent or off-patent drugs with unrecognized anticancer activity can be rapidly advanced into clinical testing for this new indication by leveraging their known pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and toxicology. Using this approach, academic groups can participate in the drug discovery field and smaller biotechnology companies can "de-risk" early-stage drug discovery projects. Here, several scientific approaches used to identify drug repurposing opportunities are highlighted, with a focus on hematologic malignancies. In addition, a discussion of the regulatory issues that are unique to drug repurposing and how they impact developing old drugs for new indications is included. Finally, the mechanisms to enhance drug repurposing through increased collaborations between academia, industry, and nonprofit charitable organizations are discussed.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations38
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207