MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386910197 · doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.3c00656

Robust Strategy for Hit-to-Lead Discovery: NMR for SAR

2023· article· en· W4386910197 on OpenAlexafffund
Sacha Thierry Larda, Yann Ayotte, Maria M. Denk, Paul Coote, Gregory J. Heffron, David Bendahan, Fatma Shahout, Nicolas Girard, Mustapha Iddir, Patricia Bouchard, François Bilodeau, Simon Woo, Luc J. Farmer, Steven R. LaPlante

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medicinal Chemistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsVIVA Foundation for Children with CancerQuébec Consortium for Drug Discovery
KeywordsFalse positive paradoxChemistryDrug discoveryFalse positives and false negativesTrue positive rateComputational biologyData miningComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishing robust structure-activity relationships (SARs) is key to successful drug discovery campaigns, yet it often remains elusive due to screening and hit validation artifacts (false positives and false negatives), which frequently result in unproductive downstream expenditures of time and resources. To address this issue, we developed an integrative biophysics-driven strategy that expedites hit-to-lead discovery, mitigates false positives/negatives and common hit validation errors, and provides a robust approach to obtaining accurate binding and affinity measurements. The advantage of this method is that it vastly improves the clarity and reproducibility for affinity-driven SAR by monitoring and eliminating confounding factors. We demonstrate the ease at which high-quality micromolar binders can be generated from the initial millimolar fragment screening hits against an "undruggable" protein target, HRas.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medicinal ChemistrySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207