iRefWeb: interactive analysis of consolidated protein interaction data and their supporting evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present iRefWeb, a web interface to protein interaction data consolidated from 10 public databases: BIND, BioGRID, CORUM, DIP, IntAct, HPRD, MINT, MPact, MPPI and OPHID. iRefWeb enables users to examine aggregated interactions for a protein of interest, and presents various statistical summaries of the data across databases, such as the number of organism-specific interactions, proteins and cited publications. Through links to source databases and supporting evidence, researchers may gauge the reliability of an interaction using simple criteria, such as the detection methods, the scale of the study (high- or low-throughput) or the number of cited publications. Furthermore, iRefWeb compares the information extracted from the same publication by different databases, and offers means to follow-up possible inconsistencies. We provide an overview of the consolidated protein-protein interaction landscape and show how it can be automatically cropped to aid the generation of meaningful organism-specific interactomes. iRefWeb can be accessed at: http://wodaklab.org/iRefWeb. Database URL: http://wodaklab.org/iRefWeb/
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 | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.013 |
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".