MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discovery and Development of Antibacterial Agents: Fortuitous and Designed

2021· article· en· W4200418065 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer therapeutics and mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialAntibioticsDrug developmentDrug discoveryDrug resistanceAntibiotic resistanceBroad spectrum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, antibacterial drug resistance has turned into a significant public health issue. Repeated intake, suboptimal and/or unnecessary use of antibiotics, and, additionally, the transfer of resistance genes are the critical elements that make microorganisms resistant to conventional antibiotics. A substantial number of antibacterials that were successfully utilized earlier for prophylaxis and therapeutic purposes have been rendered inadequate due to this phenomenon. Therefore, the exploration of new molecules has become a continuous endeavour. Many such molecules are at various stages of the investigation. A surprisingly high number of new molecules are currently in the stage of phase 3 clinical trials. A few new agents have been commercialized in the last decade. These include solithromycin, plazomicin, lefamulin, omadacycline, eravacycline, delafloxacin, zabofloxacin, finafloxacin, nemonoxacin, gepotidacin, zoliflodacin, cefiderocol, BAL30072, avycaz, zerbaxa, vabomere, relebactam, tedizolid, cadazolid, sutezolid, triclosan, and afabiacin. This article aims to review the investigational and recently approved antibacterials with a focus on their structure, mechanisms of action/resistance, and spectrum of activity. Delving deep, their success or otherwise in various phases of clinical trials is also discussed while attributing the same to various causal factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMini-Reviews in Medicinal ChemistrySame topicCancer therapeutics and mechanismsFrench-language works237,207