The Chemical Probes Portal: an expert review-based public resource to empower chemical probe assessment, selection and use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the Chemical Probes Portal (https://www.chemicalprobes.org/), an expert review-based public resource to empower chemical probe assessment, selection and use. Chemical probes are high-quality small-molecule reagents, often inhibitors, that are important for exploring protein function and biological mechanisms, and for validating targets for drug discovery. The publication, dissemination and use of chemical probes provide an important means to accelerate the functional annotation of proteins, the study of proteins in cell biology, physiology, and disease pathology, and to inform and enable subsequent pioneering drug discovery and development efforts. However, the widespread use of small-molecule compounds that are claimed as chemical probes but are lacking sufficient quality, especially being inadequately selective for the desired target or even broadly promiscuous in behaviour, has resulted in many erroneous conclusions in the biomedical literature. The Chemical Probes Portal was established as a public resource to aid the selection and best-practice use of chemical probes in basic and translational biomedical research. We describe the background, principles and content of the Portal and its technical development, as well as examples of its applications and use. The Chemical Probes Portal is a community resource and we therefore describe how researchers can be involved in its content and development.
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 | 0.047 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.173 | 0.105 |
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".