MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557481094 · doi:10.1107/s205327331409024x

Drug-Design QSARs based on QTAIM Electron Localization/Delocalization Indices

2014· article· en· W2557481094 on OpenAlexaff
Ismat Sumar, Chérif F. Matta

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Crystallographica Section A Foundations and Advances · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelocalized electronMolecular graphElectron localization functionElectron delocalizationAtoms in moleculesMoleculeDiagonalElectronMatrix (chemical analysis)Atom (system on chip)Density matrixGraph theoryComputational chemistryGraphChemistryQuantumMathematicsQuantum mechanicsCombinatoricsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the lead of chemical graph-theoretical connectivity matrices, electron localization/delocalization matrices (LDMs) and their matrix-invariants derived forms will be introduced and shown to provide a faithfully encoding of the properties of the molecules by comparing with experiment. The matrix elements of an LDM are obtained from Bader's quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM) whereby the diagonal elements are the localization indices and the off diagonal elements are 1/2 of the delocalization indices. The sum of any row or column is the total electron population of a given atom while the sum of all sums is, of course, the total number of electrons in the molecule (N). The matrix is, thus, rich with electronic (and structural) information, implicitly and explicitly, and is conceivably useful in generating quantitative molecular descriptors for structure-to-activity relationship studies (QSAR). This talk will briefly review the uses and concepts of molecular electron density descriptors with emphasis on this new class of descriptors as a novel, possibly promising, possibility.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Crystallographica Section A Foundations and AdvancesSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207