Screen, cost

Such sentinel workflow uses a prediction to select compounds for a more expensive screen that can confirm predicted hazards (liabilities, such as toxicity). It is, provably, the best workflow in contexts where a low prevalence of the hazard is anticipated, and where there is a backstop means further downstream (e.g., preclinical toxicity testing) for detecting hazards before humans are exposed. This workflow then allows the compounds predicted as safe to bypass the expensive hazards screen, without unacceptable risk, and can add significant value in terms of external screening costs or avoiding use of what may be a bottleneck resource. 

Chen, S., et al., "The Cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) Enzyme Polymorphism Screening Costs and Influence on Clinical Outcomes in Psychiatry," Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 60, 522-534 (1996). 

In summary, we reviewed all the components and instrument choices for screen automation. To set up a new screen lab, one should decide whether to implement semi-automated or fully automated systems based on throughput needs and available capital funding. Since both instrumentation and screen assay technologies advance quickly, continual testing and evaluation of new technologies are necessary to stay abreast of new developments in the field and continue to improve throughput and quality, and also reduce screening costs. 

A number of multi-million member combinatorial libraries exist in many corporations. Screening cost plays a major role in decision-making as to which library or part of a library to screen. 

Sample calculations in reports, 462 Saran, 437, 440-442 Sawing for equipment fabrication, 447 Scale formation in evaporators, 355-360 Scaling for equipment cost estimation, 169-171 Scaling factors for heat transfer, 586-587 Scale-up for equipment specifications, 36-39 Schedule number for pipe, 493 Screen, cost of 567 Self insurance, 264-265 Sensitivity of results for pipe sizing, 367-368 Separators, cost of 559-561 Sequential analysis, 771-772 Series compound-amount factor, 227... 

Figure 4-3. Comparison of the progress of evolution for a random mutagenesis approach (A) where the best mutant is used as parent for the next cycle of mutagenesis and screening and a DNA-recombination approach (B) where several improved mutants are used as parents for the next generations. Not shown here is any additional screening cost associated with finding several improved variants in each generation.

---