Comprehensively designed consensus of standalone secondary structure predictors improves<i>Q</i><sub>3</sub>by over 3%
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein fold is defined by a spatial arrangement of three types of secondary structures (SSs) including helices, sheets, and coils/loops. Current methods that predict SS from sequences rely on complex machine learning-derived models and provide the three-state accuracy (Q3) at about 82%. Further improvements in predictive quality could be obtained with a consensus-based approach, which so far received limited attention. We perform first-of-its-kind comprehensive design of a SS consensus predictor (SScon), in which we consider 12 modern standalone SS predictors and utilize Support Vector Machine (SVM) to combine their predictions. Using a large benchmark data-set with 10 random training-test splits, we show that a simple, voting-based consensus of carefully selected base methods improves Q3 by 1.9% when compared to the best single predictor. Use of SVM provides additional 1.4% improvement with the overall Q3 at 85.6% and segment overlap (SOV3) at 83.7%, when compared to 82.3 and 80.9%, respectively, obtained by the best individual methods. We also show strong improvements when the consensus is based on ab-initio methods, with Q3 = 82.3% and SOV3 = 80.7% that match the results from the best template-based approaches. Our consensus reduces the number of significant errors where helix is confused with a strand, provides particularly good results for short helices and strands, and gives the most accurate estimates of the content of individual SSs in the chain. Case studies are used to visualize the improvements offered by the consensus at the residue level. A web-server and a standalone implementation of SScon are available at http://biomine.ece.ualberta.ca/SSCon/ .
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".