MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465211533 · doi:10.1002/cpbi.1

Using DrugBank for <i>In Silico</i> Drug Exploration and Discovery

2016· article· en· W2465211533 on OpenAlexafffund
David S. Wishart, Anthony Yan‐Tang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Bioinformatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome AlbertaGenome Canada
KeywordsDrugBankCheminformaticsDrug discoveryIn silicoDrugComputer scienceComputational biologyDrug repositioningBioinformaticsWorld Wide WebPharmacologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DrugBank is a fully curated drug and drug target database that contains 8174 drug entries including 1944 FDA approved small-molecule drugs, 198 FDA-approved biotech (protein/peptide) drugs, 93 nutraceuticals, and over 6000 experimental drugs. Additionally, 4300 non-redundant protein (i.e., drug target/enzyme/transporter/carrier) sequences are linked to these drug entries. DrugBank is primarily focused on providing both the query/search tools and biophysical data needed to facilitate drug discovery and drug development. This unit provides readers with a detailed description of how to effectively use the DrugBank database and how to navigate through the DrugBank Web site. It also provides specific examples of how to find chemical homologs of potential drug leads and how to identify potential drug targets from newly sequenced tumor samples. The intent of this unit is to give readers an introduction to the field of Web-based drug discovery and to show how cheminformatics can be seamlessly integrated into the field of bioinformatics. © 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.049

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations36
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols in BioinformaticsSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207