OPTIMALLY-CONNECTED HIDDEN MARKOV MODELS FOR PREDICTING MHC-BINDING PEPTIDES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hidden Markov models (HMMs) are one of various methods that have been applied to prediction of major histo-compatibility complex (MHC) binding peptide. In terms of model topology, a fully-connected HMM (fcHMM) has the greatest potential to predict binders, at the cost of intensive computation. While a profile HMM (pHMM) performs dramatically fewer computations, it potentially merges overlapping patterns into one which results in some patterns being missed. In a profile HMM a state corresponds to a position on a peptide while in an fcHMM a state has no specific biological meaning. This work proposes optimally-connected HMMs (ocHMMs), which do not merge overlapping patterns and yet, by performing topological reductions, a model's connectivity is greatly reduced from an fcHMM. The parameters of ocHMMs are initialized using a novel amino acid grouping approach called "multiple property grouping." Each group represents a state in an ocHMM. The proposed ocHMMs are compared to a pHMM implementation using HMMER, based on performance tests on two MHC alleles HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen)-A*0201 and HLA-B*3501. The results show that the heuristic approaches can be adjusted to make an ocHMM achieve higher predictive accuracy than HMMER. Hence, such obtained ocHMMs are worthy of trial for predicting MHC-binding peptides.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".