MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113979528 · doi:10.1109/fbit.2007.21

Classification of Cell Membrane Proteins

2007· article· en· W2113979528 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Koosha Golmohammadi, Lukasz Kurgan, B. Crowley, Marek Reformat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudo amino acid compositionJackknife resamplingTransmembrane proteinMembrane proteinIn silicoComputer scienceProtein sequencingFeature (linguistics)Representation (politics)Cell membraneArtificial intelligenceComputational biologyFunction (biology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Biological systemMembranePeptide sequenceAmino acidChemistryBiochemistryBiologyMathematicsCell biologyReceptorGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Membrane proteins are an important class of proteins that serve as channels, receptors, and energy transducers in a cell membrane. Knowledge of a given type of cell membrane protein is crucial for determining its function. This paper introduces an automated, in-silico method for identifying different types of membrane proteins based on their amino acid composition. Our method applies a novel, composite protein sequence representation that includes seven feature sets. The performance of the proposed method was tested on two large datasets and was compared with eight competing prediction methods. The results indicate that our method outperforms existing methods, provides improved predictions for the transmembrane protein types, and obtains 87% and 98% accuracy for the jackknife test and test on an independent dataset, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207