MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081112743 · doi:10.1089/106652703322756195

A Transition Probability Model for Amino Acid Substitutions from Blocks

2003· article· en· W2081112743 on OpenAlexaff
Shalini Veerassamy, Andrew D. Smith, Elisabeth R.M. Tillier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstitution (logic)Sequence (biology)Distance matrices in phylogenySequence alignmentFunction (biology)Stochastic matrixMatrix (chemical analysis)Protein sequencingComputer scienceProtein evolutionAlgorithmEvolutionary algorithmMathematicsPeptide sequenceCombinatoricsBiologyGeneticsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substitution matrices have been useful for sequence alignment and protein sequence comparisons. The BLOSUM series of matrices, which had been derived from a database of alignments of protein blocks, improved the accuracy of alignments previously obtained from the PAM-type matrices estimated from only closely related sequences. Although BLOSUM matrices are scoring matrices now widely used for protein sequence alignments, they do not describe an evolutionary model. BLOSUM matrices do not permit the estimation of the actual number of amino acid substitutions between sequences by correcting for multiple hits. The method presented here uses the Blocks database of protein alignments, along with the additivity of evolutionary distances, to approximate the amino acid substitution probabilities as a function of actual evolutionary distance. The PMB (Probability Matrix from Blocks) defines a new evolutionary model for protein evolution that can be used for evolutionary analyses of protein sequences. Our model is directly derived from, and thus compatible with, the BLOSUM matrices. The model has the additional advantage of being easily implemented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations140
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207