MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167050411 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp532

Predicting homologous signaling pathways using machine learning

2009· article· en· W2167050411 on OpenAlexafffund
Babak Bostan, Russell Greiner, Duane Szafron, Paul Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceHomologous chromosomeArtificial intelligenceComputational biologySignal transductionMachine learningBiologyCell biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: In general, each cell signaling pathway involves many proteins, each with one or more specific roles. As they are essential components of cell activity, it is important to understand how these proteins work-and in particular, to determine which of the species' proteins participate in each role. Experimentally determining this mapping of proteins to roles is difficult and time consuming. Fortunately, many pathways are similar across species, so we may be able to use known pathway information of one species to understand the corresponding pathway of another. RESULTS: We present an automatic approach, Predict Signaling Pathway (PSP), which uses the signaling pathways in well-studied species to predict the roles of proteins in less-studied species. We use a machine learning approach to create a predictor that achieves a generalization F-measure of 78.2% when applied to 11 different pathways across 14 different species. We also show our approach is very effective in predicting the pathways that have not yet been experimentally studied completely. AVAILABILITY: The list of predicted proteins for all pathways over all considered species is available at http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~bioinfo/signaling.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207