MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2214494545 · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2015.07.002

Validating maps from single particle electron cryomicroscopy

2015· review· en· W2214494545 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter B. Rosenthal, John L. Rubinstein

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Structural Biology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome TrustFrancis Crick InstituteCanada Research ChairsCancer Research UK
KeywordsCryo-electron microscopyResolution (logic)Consistency (knowledge bases)Particle (ecology)Computer scienceTilt (camera)Single particle analysisData miningAlgorithmArtificial intelligencePhysicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progress in single particle cryo-EM, most recently due to the introduction of direct detector devices, has made the high-resolution structure determination of biological assemblies smaller than 500kDa more routine, but has also increased attention on the need for tools to demonstrate the validity of single particle maps. Although map validation is a continuing subject of research, some consensus has been reached on procedures that reduce model bias and over-fitting during map refinement as well as specific tests that demonstrate map validity. Tilt-pair analysis may be used as a method for demonstrating the consistency at low resolution of a map with image data. For higher-resolution maps, new procedures for more robust resolution assessment and for validating the refinement of atomic coordinate models into single particle maps have been developed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Structural BiologySame topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207