MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064770256 · doi:10.1147/sj.402.0394

Intelligent decision support for protein crystal growth

2001· article· en· W2064770256 on OpenAlexaff
Igor Jurišica, P. Rogers, Janice Glasgow, S. Fortier, Joseph R. Luft, Jennifer R. Wolfley, Melissa A. Bianca, D. R. Weeks, George T. DeTitta

Bibliographic record

VenueIBM Systems Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreQueen's UniversityUniversity Health NetworkOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsCorrectnessComputer scienceSoftwareProtein crystallizationCrystallizationComponent (thermodynamics)Process (computing)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmEngineeringProgramming languageChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current structural genomics projects are likely to produce hundreds of proteins a year for structural analysis. The primary goal of our research is to speed up the process of crystal growth for proteins in order to enable the determination of protein structure using single crystal X-ray diffraction. We describe Max, a working prototype that includes a high-throughput crystallization and evaluation setup in the wet laboratory and an intelligent software system in the computer laboratory. A robotic setup for crystal growth is able to prepare and evaluate over 40 thousand crystallization experiments a day. Images of the crystallization outcomes captured with a digital camera are processed by an image-analysis component that uses the two-dimensional Fourier transform to perform automated classification of the experiment outcome. An information repository component, which stores the data obtained from crystallization experiments, was designed with an emphasis on correctness, completeness, and reproducibility. A case-based reasoning component provides support for the design of crystal growth experiments by retrieving previous similar cases, and then adapting these in order to create a solution for the problem at hand. While work on Max is still in progress, we report here on the implementation status of its components, discuss how our work relates to other research, and describe our plans for the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations51
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIBM Systems JournalSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207