MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401497157 · doi:10.1111/bph.17300

Natural product pharmacology: the British Journal of Pharmacology perspective

2024· review· en· W4401497157 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Pharmacology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPeking UniversityU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsNatural (archaeology)Natural productEngineering ethicsPharmacologyPerspective (graphical)Action (physics)MedicineData scienceComputer scienceChemistryEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural products (NPs) have long been used as a rich source of bioactive compounds for drug development. Recent technological advancements have revitalised natural products research as evidenced by increased publications in this field. In this editorial review, we highlight key points from the 2020 British Journal of Pharmacology (BJP) practical guide, which outlines standards for natural products research reports, and provide papers published in BJP between years 2020 to 2023 that demonstrate adherence to these guidelines. Looking ahead, we discuss the potential of chemical proteomics approaches to elucidate natural products mechanisms of action and identify therapeutic targets for future research. By fostering innovation, we aim to advance natural products research and contribute to the development of novel therapeutics that will have a significant impact on healthcare.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.340 · 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