MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001515828 · doi:10.1021/ci050367t

Collaborative Filtering on a Family of Biological Targets

2006· article· en· W2001515828 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Information and Modeling · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsAstraZeneca (Canada)Université de Montréal
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsComputer scienceCollaborative filteringMachine learningArtificial intelligenceGeneralizationPrioritizationArtificial neural networkTask (project management)Representation (politics)Kernel (algebra)Data miningRecommender system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building a QSAR model of a new biological target for which few screening data are available is a statistical challenge. However, the new target may be part of a bigger family, for which we have more screening data. Collaborative filtering or, more generally, multi-task learning, is a machine learning approach that improves the generalization performance of an algorithm by using information from related tasks as an inductive bias. We use collaborative filtering techniques for building predictive models that link multiple targets to multiple examples. The more commonalities between the targets, the better the multi-target model that can be built. We show an example of a multi-target neural network that can use family information to produce a predictive model of an undersampled target. We evaluate JRank, a kernel-based method designed for collaborative filtering. We show their performance on compound prioritization for an HTS campaign and the underlying shared representation between targets. JRank outperformed the neural network both in the single- and multi-target models.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.231 · 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