MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta-Analysis and Review of <em>in silico</em> Methods in Drug Discovery – Part 1: Technological Evolution and Trends from Big Data to Chemical Space

2024· preprint· en· W4396869458 on OpenAlexaff
Arife Uzundurukan, Mark Nelson, Christopher Teske, Md. Shahidul Islam, Elzagheid Mohamed, John Victor Christy, Holli‐Joi Martin, Eugene Muratov, Samantha Glover, Domenico Fuoco

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalNova Chemicals (Canada)Université de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn silicoDrug discoveryChemical spaceBig dataSpace (punctuation)DrugComputational biologyComputer scienceData miningPharmacologyBiologyBioinformaticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundThe present review summarizes the state-of-the-art of in silico methods and techniques that are the most useful in drug discovery, their relationship with data science, as well as the successful application of data science, machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) applications. A meta-analysis of the various technologies available is furthermore proposed as a guideline for the non-expert, reader relative to the several subject areas is also discussed in this article. The scope of this meta-analysis is to rank the enlisted technologies by their field of applications and to depict the latter according to knowledge accessibility, from students to experts.Method The search strategy utilized for this review first produced a general collection of 900 papers without duplications, which were subsequently streamlined and divided into two independent collections: the top 300 most-cited papers of all time (since 2000) and the papers with the highest interest for a systematic review analysis (high-impact exciting papers). Results In Part 1, we discuss the most cited and quality 97 articles in these top 300 papers most relevant to the field of in silico drug discovery. The different disciplines are listed according to their industrial and economic incurred to society, independently from the “metric” results of how many new drug approvals (NDAs) each discipline has generated to date.ConclusionBig data, the ensemble of known items stored in publicly available databases, has improved our understanding of the many fates of a potential drug candidate during its development and even after its commercialization. Moreover, the combination of new screening techniques and “omics” with old drugs has led to a new paradigm in which the unknown knowledge of any biological molecule and its cellular structure, now plays an important role as a target for a series of yet-to-be-developed drugs: the chemical space. Furthermore, leveraging big data, data science, ML, and AI can revolutionize drug discovery by swiftly analyzing massive datasets, predicting efficacy and safety profiles, streamlining development, cutting costs, and boosting success rates for new drugs. AI also speeds up the search for promising drug candidates, advancing innovative therapies.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.029
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.165 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207