MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Solid-Phase Biological Assays for Drug Discovery

2014· review· en· W2133228433 on OpenAlex
Erica M. Forsberg, Clémence Sicard, John D. Brennan

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

VenueAnnual Review of Analytical Chemistry · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrug discoveryComputational biologyDrugSmall moleculeBiologyNanotechnologyChemistryBioinformaticsPharmacologyBiochemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past 30 years, there has been a significant growth in the use of solid-phase assays in the area of drug discovery, with a range of new assays being used for both soluble and membrane-bound targets. In this review, we provide some basic background to typical drug targets and immobilization protocols used in solid-phase biological assays (SPBAs) for drug discovery, with emphasis on particularly labile biomolecular targets such as kinases and membrane-bound receptors, and highlight some of the more recent approaches for producing protein microarrays, bioaffinity columns, and other devices that are central to small molecule screening by SPBA. We then discuss key applications of such assays to identify drug leads, with an emphasis on the screening of mixtures. We conclude by highlighting specific advantages and potential disadvantages of SPBAs, particularly as they relate to particular assay formats.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.416 · 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