A Deep Generative Model Enables Automated Structure Elucidation of Novel Psychoactive Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, the illicit drug market has been reshaped by the proliferation of clandestinely produced designer drugs. These agents, referred to as new psychoactive substances (NPSs), are designed to mimic the physiological actions of better-known drugs of abuse while skirting drug control laws. The public health burden of NPS abuse obliges toxicological, police, and customs laboratories to screen for them in law enforcement seizures and biological samples. However, the identification of emerging NPSs is challenging due to the chemical diversity of these substances and the fleeting nature of their appearance on the illicit market. Here, we present DarkNPS, a deep learning-enabled approach to automatically elucidate the structures of unidentified designer drugs using only mass spectrometric data. Our method employs a deep generative model to learn a statistical probability distribution over unobserved structures, which we term the structural prior. We show that the structural prior allows DarkNPS to elucidate the exact chemical structure of an unidentified NPS with an accuracy of 51%, and a top-10 accuracy of 78%. Our generative approach has the potential to enable de novo structure elucidation for other types of small molecules that are routinely analyzed by mass spectrometry.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".