The Blood–Brain Barrier (BBB) Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".