MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587045091 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v9n2p1

Quantitative Structure–activity Relationship Studies of Flavonoids Substituted as Anticancer Agents Activity against the Growth of the Hepatic Cancer Cell lines HepG2

2017· article· en· W2587045091 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wisam A. Radhi, Sadiq M. H. Ismael, Jasim Alshawi, Kawkab Ali Hussein

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative structure–activity relationshipChemistryCytotoxicityMolecular descriptorCancer cell linesStereochemistryRegression analysisComputational biologyCancerCancer cellIn vitroBiochemistryInternal medicineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship (QSAR) models, based on molecular descriptors, derived from molecular structures, have been used for the prediction for computed the Hepatic Cancer Cell lines HepG2 of flavonoids substituted. QSAR model including some molecular descriptors, regression quality indicates that these descriptors provide valuable information and have significant role in the assessment of the cytotoxicity of compounds under study. Four QSAR equations, for the prediction of cytotoxicity, have been drawn up by using the multiple regression technique, (Eqs 1-4) with the values of R2 ranged from 0.767-0.797, Q2 ranged from 0.765-0.796 and the values of S ranged from 7.051-7.391, while the values of F ranged from 9.328-10.354. The results have shown excellent model by Eq 4. with high R2,F and minimum S by using eight parameters [Gm, nO, nH, nCIC, nBM, nAB, D.M and Ku], and have found and indicated that these parameters have significant role in determining the properties of cytotoxicity. This result encourages the application of QSAR to a wider selection of compounds properties.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207