MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037611121 · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2007.1047

CISA: Combined NMR Resonance Connectivity Information Determination and Sequential Assignment

2007· article· en· W2037611121 on OpenAlexaff
Xiang Wan, Guohui Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsKey (lock)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Chemical shiftAlgorithmResonance (particle physics)ChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A nearly complete sequential resonance assignment is a key factor leading to successful protein structure determination via NMR spectroscopy. Assuming the availability of a set of NMR spectral peak lists, most of the existing assignment algorithms first use the differences between chemical shift values for common nuclei across multiple spectra to provide the evidence that some pairs of peaks should be assigned to sequentially adjacent amino acid residues in the target protein. They then use these connectivities as constraints to produce a sequential assignment. At various levels of success, these algorithms typically generate a large number of potential connectivity constraints, and it grows exponentially as the quality of spectral data decreases. A key observation used in our sequential assignment program, CISA, is that chemical shift residual signature information can be used to improve the connectivity determination, and thus to dramatically decrease the number of predicted connectivity constraints. Fewer connectivity constraints lead to less ambiguities in the sequential assignment. Extensive simulation studies on several large test datasets demonstrated that CISA is efficient and effective, compared to three most recently proposed sequential resonance assignment programs RANDOM, PACES, and MARS.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and BioinformaticsSame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207