Molecular hybridization: a powerful tool for multitarget drug discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The current drug discovery paradigm of 'one drug, multiple targets' has gained attention from both the academic medicinal chemistry community and the pharmaceutical industry. This is in response to the urgent need for effective agents to treat multifactorial chronic diseases. The molecular hybridization strategy is a useful tool that has been widely explored, particularly in the last two decades, for the design of multi-target drugs. AREAS COVERED: This review examines the current state of molecular hybridization in guiding the discovery of multitarget small molecules. The article discusses the design strategies and target selection for a multitarget polypharmacology approach to treat various diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, cardiac arrhythmia, endometriosis, and inflammatory diseases. EXPERT OPINION: Although the examples discussed highlight the importance of molecular hybridization for the discovery of multitarget bioactive compounds, it is notorious that the literature has focused on specific classes of targets. This may be due to a deep understanding of the pharmacophore features required for target binding, making targets such as histone deacetylases and cholinesterases frequent starting points. However, it is important to encourage the scientific community to explore diverse combinations of targets using the molecular hybridization strategy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".