MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110482684 · doi:10.1142/9789812836939_0018

DENSE GRAPHLET STATISTICS OF PROTEIN INTERACTION AND RANDOM NETWORKS

2008· article· en· W2110482684 on OpenAlexaff
Recep Çolak, Fereydoun Hormozdiari, Flavia Moser, Alexander Schönhuth, J. Alan Holman, Martin Ester, S. Cenk Şahinalp

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipartite graphInferenceComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceRandom graphBiological networkStatistical inferenceClass (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsCombinatoricsGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding evolutionary dynamics from a systemic point of view crucially depends on knowledge about how evolution affects size and structure of the organisms' functional building blocks (modules). It has been recently reported that statistics over sparse PPI graphlets can robustly monitor such evolutionary changes. However, there is abundant evidence that in PPI networks modules can be identified with highly interconnected (dense) and/or bipartite subgraphs. We count such dense graphlets in PPI networks by employing recently developed search strategies that render related inference problems tractable. We demonstrate that corresponding counting statistics differ significantly between prokaryotes and eukaryotes as well as between "real" PPI networks and scale free network emulators. We also prove that another class of emulators, the low-dimensional geometric random graphs (GRGs) cannot contain a specific type of motifs, complete bipartite graphs, which are abundant in PPI networks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207