In Silico SAR Studies of HIV-1 Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (QSAR or SAR) have helped scientists to establish mathematical relationships between molecular structures and their biological activities. In the present article, SAR studies have been carried out on 89 tetrahydroimidazo[4,5,1-jk][1,4]benzodiazepine (TIBO) derivatives using different classifiers, such as support vector machines, artificial neural networks, random forests, and decision trees. The goal is to propose classification models that will be able to classify TIBO compounds into two groups: high and low inhibitors of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. Each molecular structure was encoded by 10 descriptors. To check the validity of the established models, all of them were subjected to various validation tests: internal validation, Y-randomization, and external validation. The established classification models have been successful. The correct classification rates reached 100% and 90% in the learning and test sets, respectively. Finally, molecular docking analysis was carried out to understand the interactions between reverse transcriptase enzyme and the TIBO compounds studied. Hydrophobic and hydrogen bond interactions led to the identification of active binding sites. The established models could help scientists to predict the inhibition activity of untested compounds or of novel molecules prior to their synthesis. Therefore, they could reduce the trial and error process in the design of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) inhibitors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".