The Distribution of Standard Deviations Applied to High Throughput Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High throughput screening (HTS) assesses compound libraries for "activity" using target assays. A subset of HTS data contains a large number of sample measurements replicated a small number of times providing an opportunity to introduce the distribution of standard deviations (DSD). Applying the DSD to some HTS data sets revealed signs of bias in some of the data and discovered a sub-population of compounds exhibiting high variability which may be difficult to screen. In the data examined, 21% of 1189 such compounds were pan-assay interference compounds. This proportion reached 57% for the most closely related compounds within the sub-population. Using the DSD, large HTS data sets can be modelled in many cases as two distributions: a large group of nearly normally distributed "inactive" compounds and a residual distribution of "active" compounds. The latter were not normally distributed, overlapped inactive distributions - on both sides -, and were larger than typically assumed. As such, a large number of compounds are being misclassified as "inactive" or are invisible to current methods which could become the next generation of drugs. Although applied here to HTS, it is applicable to data sets with a large number of samples measured a small number of times.
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 | 0.003 | 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".