QSAR Models and Virtual Screening for Discovery of New Analgesic Leads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The search for new selective pharmacological agents with no significant side-effects is an increasing requirement for the development of new drugs to be used in the treatment of acute and chronic pain. In the present study, a new series of compounds (VAM 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 2-4) has been screening in QSAR-LDA mathematic models and pharmacologically evaluated. The antinociceptive properties of the new analgesic candidates obtained of virtual screening have been investigated in animal models of pain at the doses of 100, 150 and 200 mg/kg, and in vitro tests. Compounds VAM 10 and VAM 2-4 are the most potent antinociceptive agents from this series using different models of nociception in mice. A mild affinity for μ opioid receptor has been observed for the compound VAM 1 and 10. The pre-treatment with the compounds VAM 1, 2-4, 6, 10, 11, 12, showed a potent inhibition of IL-6 on RAW cells. The blocking efficacy of nineteen compounds on several isoforms of voltage-dependent sodium channels, expressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes, was tested (Nav1.3, Nav1.5, Nav1.6, Nav1.7, and Nav1.8). An exception was Nav1.6, where VAM 2-4 compound to result in substantial block indicating that acts specifically at this peculiar isoform. These results indicate the potential of the compound VAM 2-4 to treat pain conditions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".