A critical overview of computational approaches employed for COVID-19 drug discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 has resulted in huge numbers of infections and deaths worldwide and brought the most severe disruptions to societies and economies since the Great Depression. Massive experimental and computational research effort to understand and characterize the disease and rapidly develop diagnostics, vaccines, and drugs has emerged in response to this devastating pandemic and more than 130 000 COVID-19-related research papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals or deposited in preprint servers. Much of the research effort has focused on the discovery of novel drug candidates or repurposing of existing drugs against COVID-19, and many such projects have been either exclusively computational or computer-aided experimental studies. Herein, we provide an expert overview of the key computational methods and their applications for the discovery of COVID-19 small-molecule therapeutics that have been reported in the research literature. We further outline that, after the first year the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that drug repurposing has not produced rapid and global solutions. However, several known drugs have been used in the clinic to cure COVID-19 patients, and a few repurposed drugs continue to be considered in clinical trials, along with several novel clinical candidates. We posit that truly impactful computational tools must deliver actionable, experimentally testable hypotheses enabling the discovery of novel drugs and drug combinations, and that open science and rapid sharing of research results are critical to accelerate the development of novel, much needed therapeutics for 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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".