MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126320151 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl410

IndexToolkit: an open source toolbox to index protein databases for high-throughput proteomics

2006· article· en· W2126320151 on OpenAlexaff
Dequan Li, Wen Gao, Charles X. Ling, Xiaobiao Wang, Rui-Xiang Sun, Si‐Min He

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSearch engine indexingDatabaseToolboxMIT LicenseInterface (matter)Application programming interfaceInformation retrievalSource codeSoftwareOpen sourceDatabase indexLicenseDatabase search engineIndex (typography)World Wide WebSearch engineProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: A software package, IndexToolkit, aimed at overcoming the disadvantage of FASTA-format databases for frequent searching, is developed to utilize an indexing strategy to substantially accelerate sequence queries. IndexToolkit includes user-friendly tools and an Application Programming Interface (API) to facilitate indexing, storage and retrieval of protein sequence databases. As open source, it provides a sequence-retrieval developing framework, which is easily extensible for high-speed-request proteomic applications, such as database searching or modification discovering. We applied IndexToolkit to database searching engine pFind to demonstrate its effect. Experimental studies show that IndexToolkit is able to support significantly faster searches of protein database. AVAILABILITY: The IndexToolkit is free to use under the open source GNU GPL license. The source code and the compiled binary can be freely accessed through the website http://pfind.jdl.ac.cn/IndexToolkit. In this website, the more detailed information including screenshots and documentations for users and developers is also available.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207