Clustering 100,000 Protein Structure Decoys in Minutes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ab initio protein structure prediction methods first generate large sets of structural conformations as candidates (called decoys), and then select the most representative decoys through clustering techniques. Classical clustering methods are inefficient due to the pairwise distance calculation, and thus become infeasible when the number of decoys is large. In addition, the existing clustering approaches suffer from the arbitrariness in determining a distance threshold for proteins within a cluster: a small distance threshold leads to many small clusters, while a large distance threshold results in the merging of several independent clusters into one cluster. In this paper, we propose an efficient clustering method through fast estimating cluster centroids and efficient pruning rotation spaces. The number of clusters is automatically detected by information distance criteria. A package named ONION, which can be downloaded freely, is implemented accordingly. Experimental results on benchmark data sets suggest that ONION is 14 times faster than existing tools, and ONION obtains better selections for 31 targets, and worse selection for 19 targets compared to SPICKER’s selections. On an average PC, ONION can cluster 100,000 decoys in around 12 minutes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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.
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".