P2‐044: The Development of High Throughput Screening Strategies to Identify Anti‐Proteopathic and Anti‐Immunopathic Agents for The Treatment of Alzheimer's Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is a need for new therapeutics, high throughput screening to identify such compounds is costly and time demanding. There is a need to identify and implement new techniques to permit in silico high throughput screening. Multiple in silico libraries have been developed and employed to identify compounds as putative therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Four in silico libraries were put in place: 1. library of synthetic organic molecules (11.8 million); 2. library of plant-based natural products (2,000 entries); 3. library of known drug molecules (1,800 entries); and 4. library of small molecules endogenous to the human brain (1,200 entries). The ability of these compounds to bind to either the EVHHQK or LVFF motifs within beta-amyloid was assessed using an empirical force field energy minimization strategy. A select group of compounds identified in this screen were subsequently evaluated using in vitro assays, in order to validate the in silico screen. Within all four libraries, multiple hits capable of establishing energetically favourable interactions with either or both of the EVHHQK and LVFF motifs were identified. For example, within the plant-based natural product library screen, multiple polyphenols from apple peel and multiple phenylpropanoid plant metabolites (e.g. ferulic acid) were identified; within the known drug library screen, agents such as mefanamic acid were identified. A systemic in silico high throughput screening method for evaluating millions of compounds for their capacity to interact with varying “faces” of beta-amyloid has been developed and implemented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".