Computational determination of toxicity risks associated with a selection of approved drugs having demonstrated activity against COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergence and rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) in thelate 2019 has caused a devastating global pandemic of the severe pneumonia-like disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although vaccines have been and are being developed, they are not accessible to everyone and not everyone can receive these vaccines. Also, it typically takes more than 10 years until a new therapeutic agent is approved for usage. Therefore, repurposing of known drugs can lend itself well as a key approach for significantly expediting the development of new therapies for COVID-19. METHODS: We have incorporated machine learning-based computational tools and in silico models into the drug discovery process to predict Adsorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) profiles of 90 potential drugs for COVID-19 treatment identified from two independent studies mainly with the purpose of mitigating late-phase failures because of inferior pharmacokinetics and toxicity. RESULTS: Here, we summarize the cardiotoxicity and general toxicity profiles of 90 potential drugs for COVID-19 treatment and outline the risks of repurposing and propose a stratification of patients accordingly. We shortlist a total of five compounds based on their non-toxic properties. CONCLUSION: In summary, this manuscript aims to provide a potentially useful source of essential knowledge on toxicity assessment of 90 compounds for healthcare practitioners and researchers to find off-label alternatives for the treatment for COVID-19. The majority of the molecules discussed in this manuscript have already moved into clinical trials and thus their known pharmacological and human safety profiles are expected to facilitate a fast track preclinical and clinical assessment for treating COVID-19.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".