MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137387048 · doi:10.1586/eri.11.76

Progress and challenges in the discovery of macrofilaricidal drugs

2011· review· en· W2137387048 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy G. Geary, Charles D. Mackenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anti-infective Therapy · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDrugs for Neglected Diseases initiativeBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsOnchocerciasisLymphatic filariasisDrug discoveryMedicineDrugIntensive care medicinePharmacologyClinical trialFilariasisBiologyBioinformaticsImmunologyInternal medicineHelminths

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Control of human filarial infections currently depends on chemotherapeutic strategies predominantly directed at microfilariae. Doxycycline therapy in an extended daily dose regimen sterilizes and kills adult stages, but the utility of this drug for routine field use remains an issue of concern. No macrofilaricidal drugs with efficacy after one or two doses are available for use, delaying the achievement of the elimination or eradication of onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis. Moxidectin, a macrocyclic lactone, is currently in clinical trials for onchocerciasis. A few other drugs that have already been approved for use in veterinary practice or in human medicine for other indications are available for investigation. Early drug discovery pipelines are poorly populated and the process of macrofilaricide discovery and development remains highly challenging. In particular, the lack of convenient, validated animal models in an antifilarial drug discovery pathway is an unresolved issue.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 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

Citations52
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anti-infective TherapySame topicParasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207