MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158253491 · doi:10.3390/md19050240

Sulfated and Sulfur-Containing Steroids and Their Pharmacological Profile

2021· review· en· W3158253491 on OpenAlexaff
Tatyana A. Pounina, Tatyana A. Gloriozova, Nick Savidov, Valery M. Dembitsky

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Drugs · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsLethbridge College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarfishSulfurMarine invertebratesSulfationSteroidTriterpenoidChemistryBiologyBiochemistryStereochemistryOrganic chemistryHormoneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The review focuses on sulfated steroids that have been isolated from seaweeds, marine sponges, soft corals, ascidians, starfish, and other marine invertebrates. Sulfur-containing steroids and triterpenoids are sourced from sedentary marine coelenterates, plants, marine sediments, crude oil, and other geological deposits. The review presents the pharmacological profile of sulfated steroids, sulfur-containing steroids, and triterpenoids, which is based on data obtained using the PASS program. In addition, several semi-synthetic and synthetic epithio steroids, which represent a rare group of bioactive lipids that have not yet been found in nature, but possess a high level of antitumor activity, were included in this review for the comparative pharmacological characterization of this class of compounds. About 140 steroids and triterpenoids are presented in this review, which demonstrate a wide range of biological activities. Therefore, out of 71 sulfated steroids, thirteen show strong antitumor activity with a confidence level of more than 90%, out of 50 sulfur-containing steroids, only four show strong antitumor activity with a confidence level of more than 93%, and out of eighteen epithio steroids, thirteen steroids show strong antitumor activity with a confidence level of 91% to 97.4%.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine DrugsSame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207