MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979759717 · doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b01220

The Blood–Brain Barrier (BBB) Score

2019· article· en· W2979759717 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersKrembil FoundationCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPolar surface areaChemistryBlood–brain barrierDrugHydrogen bondPharmacologyMoleculeOrganic chemistryInternal medicineCentral nervous systemMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) protects the brain from the toxic side effects of drugs and exogenous molecules. However, it is crucial that medications developed for neurological disorders cross into the brain in therapeutic concentrations. Understanding the BBB interaction with drug molecules based on physicochemical property space can guide effective and efficient drug design. An algorithm, designated "BBB Score", composed of stepwise and polynomial piecewise functions, is herein proposed for predicting BBB penetration based on five physicochemical descriptors: number of aromatic rings, heavy atoms, MWHBN (a descriptor comprising molecular weight, hydrogen bond donor, and hydrogen bond acceptors), topological polar surface area, and pKa. On the basis of statistical analyses of our results, the BBB Score outperformed (AUC = 0.86) currently employed MPO approaches (MPO, AUC = 0.61; MPO_V2, AUC = 0.67). Initial evaluation of physicochemical property space using the BBB Score is a valuable addition to currently available drug design algorithms.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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