Prioritizing Disease Candidate Proteins in Cardiomyopathy-Specific Protein-Protein Interaction Networks Based on “Guilt by Association” Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cardiomyopathies are a group of heart muscle diseases which can be inherited (familial). Identifying potential disease-related proteins is important to understand mechanisms of cardiomyopathies. Experimental identification of cardiomyophthies is costly and labour-intensive. In contrast, bioinformatics approach has a competitive advantage over experimental method. Based on "guilt by association" analysis, we prioritized candidate proteins involving in human cardiomyopathies. We first built weighted human cardiomyopathy-specific protein-protein interaction networks for three subtypes of cardiomyopathies using the known disease proteins from Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man as seeds. We then developed a method in prioritizing disease candidate proteins to rank candidate proteins in the network based on "guilt by association" analysis. It was found that most candidate proteins with high scores shared disease-related pathways with disease seed proteins. These top ranked candidate proteins were related with the corresponding disease subtypes, and were potential disease-related proteins. Cross-validation and comparison with other methods indicated that our approach could be used for the identification of potentially novel disease proteins, which may provide insights into cardiomyopathy-related mechanisms in a more comprehensive and integrated way.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".