Optimization of the Sliding Window Size for Protein Structure Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sliding window based methods are relatively often applied in prediction of various aspects related to protein structure. Despite their wide spread use, researchers did not establish a standard related to the size of the window, i.e., window sizes ranging between 7 and 17 residues were used in the past. To this end, this paper performs a computational study based on a probabilistic approach that aims at finding an optimal sliding window size. The results shows that formation of helical structure can be affected by amino acids (AAs) that are up to 9 positions away in the sequence, while the formation of coils and strands can be affected by AAs that are up to 3 and 6 positions away, respectively. Overall, our results suggest that a sliding window with 19 residues is optimal for secondary structure prediction, while for a specific prediction tasks, such as prediction of p-strands, a smaller window size is sufficient. Finally, the 20 AAs are categorized into five groups based on their influence of formation of the secondary structure. The finding related to the optimal window size was confirmed based on an independent experimental study related to the prediction of secondary protein structure
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".