MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385697551 · doi:10.3390/molecules28165966

Applications and Potential of In Silico Approaches for Psychedelic Chemistry

2023· review· en· W4385697551 on OpenAlexafffund
Sedat Karabulut, Harpreet Kaur, James W. Gauld

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsData scienceComputer scienceIn silicoInformaticsDrug discoveryField (mathematics)Big dataHealth informaticsDrug developmentComputational biologyManagement scienceBioinformaticsData miningBiologyDrugMedicineEngineeringPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular-level investigations of the Central Nervous System have been revolutionized by the development of computational methods, computing power, and capacity advances. These techniques have enabled researchers to analyze large amounts of data from various sources, including genomics, in vivo, and in vitro drug tests. In this review, we explore how computational methods and informatics have contributed to our understanding of mental health disorders and the development of novel drugs for neurological diseases, with a special focus on the emerging field of psychedelics. In addition, the use of state-of-the-art computational methods to predict the potential of drug compounds and bioinformatic tools to integrate disparate data sources to create predictive models is also discussed. Furthermore, the challenges associated with these methods, such as the need for large datasets and the diversity of in vitro data, are explored. Overall, this review highlights the immense potential of computational methods and informatics in Central Nervous System research and underscores the need for continued development and refinement of these techniques and more inclusion of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSARs).

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207