MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109055445 · doi:10.1002/cyto.b.21970

Best practices for optimization and validation of flow cytometry‐based receptor occupancy assays

2020· article· en· W3109055445 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

VenueCytometry Part B Clinical Cytometry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsCaprion (Canada)
FundersAmerican Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists
KeywordsFlow cytometryComputational biologyOccupancyComputer scienceDrug developmentIdentification (biology)ReceptorDrugBiologyPharmacologyImmunologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the development of therapeutic compounds that bind cell surface molecules, it is critical to demonstrate the extent to which the drug engages its target. For cell-associated targets, flow cytometry is well-suited to monitor drug-to-target engagement through receptor occupancy assays (ROA). The technology allows for the identification of specific cell subsets within heterogeneous populations and the detection of nonabundant cellular antigens. There are numerous challenges in the design, development, and implementation of robust ROA. Among the most difficult challenges are situations where there is receptor modulation or when the target-antigen is expressed at low levels. When the therapeutic molecules are bi-specific and bind multiple targets, these challenges are increased. This manuscript discusses the challenges and proposes best practices for designing, optimizing, and validating ROA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.230 · 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