High-throughput protein crystallization on the World Community Grid and the GPU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have developed CPU and GPU versions of an automated image analysis and classification system for protein crystallization trial images from the Hauptman Woodward Institute's High-Throughput Screening lab. The analysis step computes 12,375 numerical features per image. Using these features, we have trained a classifier that distinguishes 11 different crystallization outcomes, recognizing 80% of all crystals, 94% of clear drops, 94% of precipitates. The computing requirements for this analysis system are large. The complete HWI archive of 120 million images is being processed by the donated CPU cycles on World Community Grid, with a GPU phase launching in early 2012. The main computational burden of the analysis is the measure of textural (GLCM) features within the image at multiple neighbourhoods, distances, and at multiple greyscale intensity resolutions. CPU runtime averages 4,092 seconds (single threaded) on an Intel Xeon, but only 65 seconds on an NVIDIA Tesla C2050. We report on the process of adapting the C++ code to OpenCL, optimized for multiple platforms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
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".