Identifying side effects of commonly used drugs in the treatment of Covid 19
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To increase the success in Covid 19 treatment, many drug suggestions are presented, and some clinical studies are shared in the literature. There have been some attempts to use some of these drugs in combination. However, using more than one drug together may cause serious side effects on patients. Therefore, detecting drug-drug interactions of the drugs used will be of great importance in the treatment of Covid 19. In this study, the interactions of 8 drugs used for Covid 19 treatment with 645 different drugs and possible side effects estimates have been produced using Graph Convolutional Networks. As a result of the experiments, it has been found that the hematopoietic system and the cardiovascular system are exposed to more side effects than other organs. Among the focused drugs, Heparin and Atazanavir appear to cause more adverse reactions than other drugs. In addition, as it is known that some of these 8 drugs are used together in Covid-19 treatment, the side effects caused by using these drugs together are shared. With the experimental results obtained, it is aimed to facilitate the selection of the drugs and increase the success of Covid 19 treatment according to the targeted patient.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it