MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156124616 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm452

Leveraging the structure of the Semantic Web to enhance information retrieval for proteomics

2007· article· en· W2156124616 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrew Smith, Kei Cheung, Michael Krauthammer, Martin H. Schultz, Mark Gerstein

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMcGill University
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalGraphLeverage (statistics)SPARQLRDFSubgraph isomorphism problemSemantic WebArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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