MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179086760 · doi:10.1517/13543776.2016.1118062

Evaluation of WO2015042088 A1 - a novel urea-based scaffold for TrkA inhibition

2015· article· en· W2179086760 on OpenAlexaff
Vadim Bernard‐Gauthier, Ralf Schirrmacher

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrk receptorTropomyosin receptor kinase AChemistryKinasePharmacologyBiochemistryReceptorNerve growth factorBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tropomyosin receptor kinases (TrkA/B/C) are involved in the development and maintenance of the nervous system. TrkA is a target for chronic pain treatment due to the central position of the nerve growth factor (NGF)/TrkA pathway in nociception. Clinical evidence points toward mutated oncogenic Trk fusion proteins retaining intact kinase domains as relevant targets for cancer treatment. Merck pursues Trk inhibitors for inflammatory and neuropathic pain treatment and has previously reported type I and II selective pan-Trk inhibitors. This is the fifth filing by Merck disclosing urea-based Trk inhibitor series. This application claims nonsymmetric 1-(9H-fluoren-9-yl)urea and 1-(9H-xanthen-9-yl)urea derivatives containing a wide range of 5- and 6-membered bi- or tri-heterocyclic fragments as TrkA inhibitors for the treatment of Trk-related conditions. The exemplified compounds display IC50 values ranging from 27 to 4800 nM against TrkA. The TrkA inhibitors claimed confirm the emergence of nonsymmetric ureas lacking the hinge-binding motif as a favored Trk inhibitor structure. The compounds exemplified will likely be structurally optimized in the future. Despite the lack of selectivity profiling, the progression of the Trk inhibitor scaffold exploration by Merck also suggests that the compounds disclosed in this patent likely constitute non-adenosine triphosphate (ATP) competitive type III pan-Trk inhibitors.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.419
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.006 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Therapeutic PatentsSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207