Exploring use of unsupervised clustering to associate signaling profiles of GPCR ligands to clinical response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Signaling diversity of G protein-coupled (GPCR) ligands provides novel opportunities to develop more effective, better-tolerated therapeutics. Taking advantage of these opportunities requires identifying which effectors should be specifically activated or avoided so as to promote desired clinical responses and avoid side effects. However, identifying signaling profiles that support desired clinical outcomes remains challenging. This study describes signaling diversity of mu opioid receptor (MOR) ligands in terms of logistic and operational parameters for ten different in vitro readouts. It then uses unsupervised clustering of curve parameters to: classify MOR ligands according to similarities in type and magnitude of response, associate resulting ligand categories with frequency of undesired events reported to the pharmacovigilance program of the Food and Drug Administration and associate signals to side effects. The ability of the classification method to associate specific in vitro signaling profiles to clinically relevant responses was corroborated using β2-adrenergic receptor ligands.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".