MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913436838 · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00747

Quantitative Structure–Price Relationship (QS$R) Modeling and the Development of Economically Feasible Drug Discovery Projects

2019· article· en· W2913436838 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Fernández, Fuqiang Ban, Godwin Woo, Oleksandr Isaev, Carl F. Perez, Valery V. Fokin, Alexander Tropsha, Artem Cherkasov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Information and Modeling · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCheminformaticsQuantitative structure–activity relationshipDrug discoveryComputer sciencePipeline (software)Virtual screeningBiochemical engineeringData scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the field of quantitative structure-activity/property relationship (QSAR/QSPR) modeling has developed into a stable technology capable of reliably predicting new bioactive molecules. With the availability of inexpensive commercial sources of both synthetic chemicals and bioactivity assays, a cheminformatics-savvy scientist can readily establish a virtual drug discovery enterprise. A skilled computational chemist can not only develop a computer-aided drug discovery pipeline but also acquire or have the drug candidates made inexpensively for economical screening of desired on-target activity, critical off-target effects, and essential drug-likeness properties. As part of our drug discovery pipeline, a novel machine-learning model was built to relate chemical structures of synthetically accessible molecules to their prices. The model was trained from our "in stock" and "made on demand" diverse chemical entities, ranging in price from $20 to >$10,000. This novel model is encoded here as the quantitative structure-price relationship (QS$R) model.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Information and ModelingSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207