Computational translation of drug effects from animal experiments to human ventricular myocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using animal cells and tissues as precise measuring devices for developing new drugs presents a long-standing challenge for the pharmaceutical industry. Despite the very significant resources that continue to be dedicated to animal testing of new compounds, only qualitative results can be obtained. This often results in both false positives and false negatives. Here, we show how the effect of drugs applied to animal ventricular myocytes can be translated, quantitatively, to estimate a number of different effects of the same drug on human cardiomyocytes. We illustrate and validate our methodology by translating, from animal to human, the effect of dofetilide applied to dog cardiomyocytes, the effect of E-4031 applied to zebrafish cardiomyocytes, and, finally, the effect of sotalol applied to rabbit cardiomyocytes. In all cases, the accuracy of our quantitative estimates are demonstrated. Our computations reveal that, in principle, electrophysiological data from testing using animal ventricular myocytes, can give precise, quantitative estimates of the effect of new compounds on human cardiomyocytes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".