MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307447012 · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100794

Deep generative molecular design reshapes drug discovery

2022· review· en· W4307447012 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteHEC Montréal
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCleveland Clinic
KeywordsGenerative grammarDrug discoveryComputer scienceDeep learningArtificial intelligenceData scienceGenerative modelBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advances and accomplishments of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep generative models have established their usefulness in medicinal applications, especially in drug discovery and development. To correctly apply AI, the developer and user face questions such as which protocols to consider, which factors to scrutinize, and how the deep generative models can integrate the relevant disciplines. This review summarizes classical and newly developed AI approaches, providing an updated and accessible guide to the broad computational drug discovery and development community. We introduce deep generative models from different standpoints and describe the theoretical frameworks for representing chemical and biological structures and their applications. We discuss the data and technical challenges and highlight future directions of multimodal deep generative models for accelerating drug discovery.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.280 · 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