MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387417688 · doi:10.5267/j.ccl.2023.6.006

Development of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional QSAR models of Indazole derivatives as TTK inhibitors having Anticancer potential

2023· article· en· W4387417688 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mithlesh Yadav, Balasubramanian Narasimhan, Archana Kapoor

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Chemistry Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and biological activity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndazoleQuantitative structure–activity relationshipChemistryPharmacophoreCorrelation coefficientStereochemistryCombinatorial chemistryMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aimed to explore the anticancer efficacy of indazole pharmacophore by analyzing a series of 109 derivatives of indazole as Tyrosine Threonine Kinase (TTK) inhibitors through quantitative activity relationship analysis using 2D and 3D QSAR techniques. The best 2D-QSAR model was generated by the MLR method, showing a high correlation coefficient (r2) of 0.9512, and good internal (q2), and external (pred_r2) cross-validation regression coefficients of 0.8998, and 0.8661, respectively. The residual values were modest, indicating good agreement between the observed and predicted pIC50 values, which suggested that the chosen model was predictably accurate. The 3D QSAR model, built using the SWF kNN approach, displayed a high internal cross-validation regression coefficient (q2) of 0.9132. Essential structural features/considerations in developing indazole as prospective anticancer medicines have been suggested. The study provides a reliable and predictive model for the prediction of anticancer activity of indazole derivatives. The identified essential structural features/considerations may be useful for the development of prospective anticancer medicines.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Chemistry LettersSame topicSynthesis and biological activityFrench-language works237,207