MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411307461

tcTKB: an integrated cardiovascular toxicity knowledge base for targeted cancer drugs.

2015· article· en· W2411307461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rong Xu, QuanQiu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrugAdverse Event Reporting SystemAdverse effectMedicineCancerPharmacologyAnticancer drugBioinformaticsOncologyInternal medicineBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Targeted cancer drugs are often associated with unexpectedly high cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. Systematic approaches to studying CV events associated with targeted anticancer drugs have high potential for elucidating the complex pathways underlying targeted anti-cancer drugs. In this study, we built tcTKB, a comprehensive CV toxicity knowledge base for targeted cancer drugs, by extracting drug-CV pairs from five large-scale and complementary data sources. The data sources include FDA drug labels (44,979 labels), the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) (4,285,097 records), the Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database (CVAROD) (1,107,752 records), published biomedical literature (21,354,075 records), and published full-text articles from the Journal of Oncology (JCO) (13,855 articles). tcTKB contains 14,351 drug-CV pairs for 45 targeted anticancer drugs and 1,842 CV events. We demonstrate that CV events positively correlate with drug target genes and drug metabolism genes, demonstrating that tcTKB in combination with other data resources, could facilitate our understanding of targeted anticancer drugs and their associated CV toxicities.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0160.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venuePubMedSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207