MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160004708 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl259

Distance based algorithms for small biomolecule classification and structural similarity search

2006· article· en· W2160004708 on OpenAlexaff
Emre Karakoç, Artem Cherkasov, S. Cenk Şahinalp

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinkowski distanceClassifier (UML)Nearest neighbor searchComputer scienceSimilarity (geometry)Artificial intelligencePruningPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningFocus (optics)k-nearest neighbors algorithmMachine learningAlgorithmMathematicsEuclidean distance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Structural similarity search among small molecules is a standard tool used in molecular classification and in-silico drug discovery. The effectiveness of this general approach depends on how well the following problems are addressed. The notion of similarity should be chosen for providing the highest level of discrimination of compounds wrt the bioactivity of interest. The data structure for performing search should be very efficient as the molecular databases of interest include several millions of compounds. RESULTS: In this paper we focus on the k-nearest-neighbor search method, which, until recently was not considered for small molecule classification. The few recent applications of k-nn to compound classification focus on selecting the most relevant set of chemical descriptors which are then compared under standard Minkowski distance L(p). Here we show how to computationally design the optimal weighted Minkowski distance wL(p) for maximizing the discrimination between active and inactive compounds wrt bioactivities of interest. We then show how to construct pruning based k-nn search data structures for any wL(p) distance that minimizes similarity search time. The accuracy achieved by our classifier is better than the alternative LDA and MLR approaches and is comparable to the ANN methods. In terms of running time, our classifier is considerably faster than the ANN approach especially when large data sets are used. Furthermore, our classifier quantifies the level of bioactivity rather than returning a binary decision and thus is more informative than the ANN approach.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207