MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998313618 · doi:10.1139/v06-012

LGA-Dock/EM-Dock Exploring Lamarckian genetic algorithms and energy-based local search for ligandreceptor docking

2006· article· en· W1998313618 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Emily A. Wiley, Michael B. MacDonald, Andreas Lambropoulos, D. Joseph Harriman, Ghislain Deslongchamps

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, IndiaMinistry of Earth SciencesNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsDOCKDocking (animal)AutoDockGenetic algorithmProtein–ligand dockingSimulated annealingChemistryComputer scienceAlgorithmMolecular dynamicsComputational chemistryMachine learningVirtual screeningGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the development of LGA-Dock and EM-Dock, two SVL-based docking programs for flexible ligand – rigid receptor docking applications. LGA-Dock is comprised of a stochastic population generator, a docking routine based on a Lamarckian genetic algorithm, and a local search function based on molecular mechanics (MM) energy minimization. Subsequent modifications of LGA-Dock to address performance issues produced EM-Dock, which proved to be as accurate and much faster than its predecessor despite the deletion of the genetic algorithm component. The basic performance of LGA-Dock and EM-Dock, compared with AutoDock and MOE™ 2004.03 docking routines is presented.Key words: docking, Lamarckian genetic algorithm, molecular mechanics, simulated annealing, tabu search, local search.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207