MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280882155 · doi:10.1039/c5np00083a

Molecular imaging probes derived from natural peptides

2016· review· en· W2280882155 on OpenAlexafffund
Carlie L. Charron, Jennifer L. Hickey, Tienabe K. Nsiama, Dana R. Cruickshank, William L. Turnbull, Leonard G. Luyt

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Product Reports · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchCanadian Cancer SocietyProstate Cancer Canada
KeywordsDerivatizationMolecular imagingComputational biologyChemistryNatural (archaeology)Combinatorial chemistryBiologyChromatographyMass spectrometryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Covering: up to the end of 2015.Peptides are naturally occurring compounds that play an important role in all living systems and are responsible for a range of essential functions. Peptide receptors have been implicated in disease states such as oncology, metabolic disorders and cardiovascular disease. Therefore, natural peptides have been exploited as diagnostic and therapeutic agents due to the unique target specificity for their endogenous receptors. This review discusses a variety of natural peptides highlighting their discovery, endogenous receptors, as well as their derivatization to create molecular imaging agents, with an emphasis on the design of radiolabelled peptides. This review also highlights methods for discovering new and novel peptides when knowledge of specific targets and endogenous ligands are not available.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations66
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural Product ReportsSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207