MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405244150 · doi:10.1016/j.neurot.2024.e00498

PET in neurotherapeutic discovery and development

2024· review· en· W4405244150 on OpenAlexafffund
Melissa Chassé, Neil Vasdev

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurotherapeutics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAzrieli FoundationCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNeurologyNeurosurgeryNeurosciencePsychologyComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h2>Abstract</h2> Positron emission tomography (PET) is a highly sensitive, quantitative imaging technique that can track sub-nanomolar quantities of positron-emitting radionuclides throughout the body. By incorporating such radionuclides into molecules of interest, we can directly assess their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) characteristics <i>in vivo</i> without changing their physicochemical characteristics or eliciting a pharmacological response. As such, PET imaging has long been used as a tool to aid drug discovery programs from preclinical biomarker validation all the way through to clinical trials. In this perspective we discuss the use of PET radioligands in central nervous system (CNS) drug discovery and development, with a focus on recent applications in psychiatry (e.g. 5-HT<sub>2</sub>A, 11β-HSD1), neuro-oncology (e.g. KRAS<sup>G12C</sup>, ATM, ALK2), and neurodegeneration (e.g. amyloid beta plaques, MAPK p38), while exploring the intricacies associated with developing novel radiotracers for CNS targets. Examples highlight the preclinical and clinical uses of PET for studying biomarker function, drug candidate PK/PD, target occupancy/engagement, dosing regimen determination, clinical trial patient selection, and quantifying biomarker changes in response to treatments.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurotherapeuticsSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207