MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128564217 · doi:10.1177/1087057105281173

Experimental Screening of Dihydrofolate Reductase Yields a “Test Set” of 50,000 Small Molecules for a Computational Data-Mining and Docking Competition

2005· article· en· W2128564217 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadine H. Elowe, Jan Blanchard, Jonathan Cechetto, Eric D. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueSLAS DISCOVERY · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsDihydrofolate reductaseTest setComputer scienceComputational biologySet (abstract data type)High-throughput screeningDocking (animal)Data setTraining setSmall moleculeEscherichia coliData miningDrug discoveryChemistryBiologyMachine learningBiochemistryArtificial intelligenceEnzymeMedicineProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-throughput screening (HTS) generates an abundance of data that are a valuable resource to be mined. Dockers and data miners can use "real-world" HTS data to test and further develop their tools. A screen of 50,000 diverse small molecules was carried out against Escherichia coli dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) and compared with a previous screen of 50,000 compounds against the same target. Identical assays and conditions were maintained for both studies. Prior to the completion of the second screen, the original screening data were publicly released for use as a "training set", and computational chemists and data analysts were challenged to predict the activity of compounds in this second "test set". Upon completion, the primary screen of the test set generated no potent inhibitors of DHFR activity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSLAS DISCOVERYSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207