MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001449808 · doi:10.1002/cpt.1795

Will Artificial Intelligence for Drug Discovery Impact Clinical Pharmacology?

2020· review· en· W3001449808 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Drug discoveryClinical pharmacologyIdentification (biology)Clinical trialClinical PracticeGenerative grammarDrugPharmacologyMedicineData scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) for drug discovery is rapidly advancing, we address the question "What is the impact of recent AI/ML trends in the area of Clinical Pharmacology?" We address difficulties and AI/ML developments for target identification, their use in generative chemistry for small molecule drug discovery, and the potential role of AI/ML in clinical trial outcome evaluation. We briefly discuss current trends in the use of AI/ML in health care and the impact of AI/ML context of the daily practice of clinical pharmacologists.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.359
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.232 · 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