MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Venom and Toxin as Targeted Therapy

2019· book· en· W3173008638 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicToxin Mechanisms and Immunotoxins
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityNational Institutes of HealthVetenskapsrådetMinistry of Trade, Industry and EnergyNational Research Foundation of KoreaFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloSwedish Cancer FoundationActive BiotechNational Cancer InstituteNational Research FoundationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftSahlgrenska AkademinKyung Hee University
KeywordsVenomComputational biologyPharmacologySnake venomMedicineBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Targeted therapy has developed significantly in the last one and half decades, prescribing specific medications for treatment of particular diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. One of the most exciting recent developments in targeted therapies was the isolation of disease-specific molecules from natural resources, such as animal venoms and plant metabolites/toxins, for use as templates for new drug motif designs. In addition, the study of venom proteins/peptides and toxins naturally targeted mammalian receptors and demonstrated high specificity and selectivity towards defined ion channels of cell membranes. Research has also focsed intensely on receptors. The focus of this Special Issue of Toxins addressed the most recent advances using animal venoms, such as frog secretions, bee/ant venoms and plant/fungi toxins, as medicinal therapy. Recent advances in venom/toxin/immunotoxins for targeted cancer therapy and immunotherapy, along with using novel disease-specific venom-based protein/peptide/toxin and currently available FDA-approved drugs for combinationtreatments will be discussed. Finally, we included an overview of select promising toad/snake venom-based peptides/toxins potentially able to address the forthcoming challenges in this field. Both research and review articles proposing novelties or overviews, respectively, were published in this Special Issue after rigorous evaluation and revision by expert peer reviewers.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.654
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.009

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicToxin Mechanisms and ImmunotoxinsFrench-language works237,207