Establishing a training set through the visual analysis of crystallization trials. Part I: ∼150 000 images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural crystallography aims to provide a three-dimensional representation of macromolecules. Many parts of the multistep process to produce the three-dimensional structural model have been automated, especially through various structural genomics projects. A key step is the production of crystals for diffraction. The target macromolecule is combined with a large and chemically diverse set of cocktails with some leading ideally, but infrequently, to crystallization. A variety of outcomes will be observed during these screening experiments that typically require human interpretation for classification. Human interpretation is neither scalable nor objective, highlighting the need to develop an automatic computer-based image classification. As a first step towards automated image classification, 147,456 images representing crystallization experiments from 96 different macromolecular samples were manually classified. Each image was classified by three experts into seven predefined categories or their combinations. The resulting data where all three observers are in agreement provides one component of a truth set for the development and rigorous testing of automated image-classification systems and provides information about the chemical cocktails used for crystallization. In this paper, the details of this study are presented.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".