Discovering patterns to extract protein–protein interactions from full texts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Although there are several databases storing protein-protein interactions, most such data still exist only in the scientific literature. They are scattered in scientific literature written in natural languages, defying data mining efforts. Much time and labor have to be spent on extracting protein pathways from literature. Our aim is to develop a robust and powerful methodology to mine protein-protein interactions from biomedical texts. RESULTS: We present a novel and robust approach for extracting protein-protein interactions from literature. Our method uses a dynamic programming algorithm to compute distinguishing patterns by aligning relevant sentences and key verbs that describe protein interactions. A matching algorithm is designed to extract the interactions between proteins. Equipped only with a dictionary of protein names, our system achieves a recall rate of 80.0% and precision rate of 80.5%. AVAILABILITY: The program is available on request from the authors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it