MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Potency‐Directed Similarity Searching Using Support Vector Machines

2010· article· en· W2165557159 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Mai Wassermann, Kathrin Heikamp, Jürgen Bajorath

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Biology & Drug Design · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePotencyMachine learningRelevance vector machineSimilarity (geometry)Structured support vector machineKernel methodKernel (algebra)Data miningMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Support vector machine modeling has become increasingly popular in chemoinformatics. Recently, several advanced support vector machine applications have been reported including, among others, multitask learning for ligand-target prediction. Here, we introduce another support vector machine approach to add compound potency information to similarity searching and enrich database selection sets with potent hits. For this purpose, we introduce a structure-activity kernel function and a potency-oriented support vector machine linear combination approach. Using fingerprint descriptors, potency-directed support vector machine searching has been successfully applied to four high-throughput screening data sets, and different support vector machine strategies have been compared. For potency-balanced compound reference sets, potency-directed support vector machine searching meets or exceeds recall rates of standard support vector machine calculations but detects many more potent hits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Biology & Drug DesignSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207