NMR as a “Gold Standard” Method in Drug Design and Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying disease models at the molecular level is vital for drug development in order to improve treatment and prevent a wide range of human pathologies. Microbial infections are still a major challenge because pathogens rapidly and continually evolve developing drug resistance. Cancer cells also change genetically, and current therapeutic techniques may be (or may become) ineffective in many cases. The pathology of many neurological diseases remains an enigma, and the exact etiology and underlying mechanisms are still largely unknown. Viral infections spread and develop much more quickly than does the corresponding research needed to prevent and combat these infections; the present and most relevant outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, which originated in Wuhan, China, illustrates the critical and immediate need to improve drug design and development techniques. Modern day drug discovery is a time-consuming, expensive process. Each new drug takes in excess of 10 years to develop and costs on average more than a billion US dollars. This demonstrates the need of a complete redesign or novel strategies. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) has played a critical role in drug discovery ever since its introduction several decades ago. In just three decades, NMR has become a "gold standard" platform technology in medical and pharmacology studies. In this review, we present the major applications of NMR spectroscopy in medical drug discovery and development. The basic concepts, theories, and applications of the most commonly used NMR techniques are presented. We also summarize the advantages and limitations of the primary NMR methods in drug development.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".