Leveraging the structure of the Semantic Web to enhance information retrieval for proteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Proteomics researchers need to be able to quickly retrieve relevant information from the web and the biomedical literature. To improve information retrieval, we leverage the structure of the semantic web, developing an approach for joining it with the largely opposing paradigm of unsupervised web search. RESULTS: Our approach uses a Resource-Description-Framework (RDF) graph that inter-relates documents through their associated biological identifiers (e.g., protein ID). A search begins with a simple query term (UniProt identifier), which is expanded with terms extracted from documents in the RDF graph surrounding the query ("the subgraph"). We re-rank documents in the full corpus (e.g. all PubMed) by their cosine-similarity scores against a composite word-weight vector created from the subgraph. This vector is a weighted sum of individual word-weight vectors for documents at each node of the subgraph, taking into account the types of relationships between the central query identifier and the nodes connected to it. The computation also uses inverse document frequency (IDF) in a novel way to rescale the local word frequencies in the query's subgraph relative to that in other subgraphs. Applying our procedure to PubMed, we optimize weights for various relationships in the subgraph and benchmark overall performance in detail. Using a subgraph containing family relationships (from PFAM) results in a significant improvement in accuracy (as compared to not considering the subgraph in the search) when assessed against known relationships in the yeast literature. Moreover, we achieve this accuracy using only relatively simple and computationally efficient methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".