LoopWeaver: Loop Modeling by the Weighted Scaling of Verified Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modeling loops is a necessary step in protein structure determination, even with experimental nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) data, it is widely known to be difficult. Database techniques have the advantage of producing a higher proportion of predictions with subangstrom accuracy when compared with ab initio techniques, but the disadvantage of also producing a higher proportion of clashing or highly inaccurate predictions. We introduce LoopWeaver, a database method that uses multidimensional scaling to achieve better, clash-free placement of loops obtained from a database of protein structures. This allows us to maintain the above-mentioned advantage while avoiding the disadvantage. Test results show that we achieve significantly better results than all other methods, including Modeler, Loopy, SuperLooper, and Rapper, before refinement. With refinement, our results (LoopWeaver and Loopy consensus) are better than ROSETTA, with 0.42 Å RMSD on average for 206 length 6 loops, 0.64 Å local RMSD for 168 length 7 loops, 0.81Å RMSD for 117 length 8 loops, and 0.98 Å RMSD for length 9 loops, while ROSETTA has 0.55, 0.79, 1.16, 1.42, respectively, at the same average time limit (3 hours). When we allow ROSETTA to run for over a week, it approaches, but does not surpass, our accuracy.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".