Utilization of Supervised Machine Learning to Understand Kinase Inhibitor Toxophore Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been more than 70 FDA-approved drugs to target the ATP binding site of kinases, mainly in the field of oncology. These compounds are usually developed to target specific kinases, but in practice, most of these drugs are multi-kinase inhibitors that leverage the conserved nature of the ATP pocket across multiple kinases to increase their clinical efficacy. To utilize kinase inhibitors in targeted therapy and outside of oncology, a narrower kinome profile and an understanding of the toxicity profile is imperative. This is essential when considering treating chronic diseases with kinase targets, including neurodegeneration and inflammation. This will require the exploration of inhibitor chemical space and an in-depth understanding of off-target interactions. We have developed an early pipeline toxicity screening platform that uses supervised machine learning (ML) to classify test compounds' cell stress phenotypes relative to a training set of on-market and withdrawn drugs. Here, we apply it to better understand the toxophores of some literature kinase inhibitor scaffolds, looking specifically at a series of 4-anilinoquinoline and 4-anilinoquinazoline model libraries.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".