Open PHACTS computational protocols for <i>in silico</i> target validation of cellular phenotypic screens: knowing the knowns
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
follow-up work is on the exploration of possible molecular mechanisms and efficacy targets underlying the biological processes interrogated by the phenotypic screening experiments. Herein, we present six exemplar computational protocols for the interpretation of cellular phenotypic screens based on the integration of compound, target, pathway, and disease data established by the IMI Open PHACTS project. The protocols annotate phenotypic hit lists and allow follow-up experiments and mechanistic conclusions. The annotations included are from ChEMBL, ChEBI, GO, WikiPathways and DisGeNET. Also provided are protocols which select from the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY interaction file selective compounds to probe potential targets and a correlation robot which systematically aims to identify an overlap of active compounds in both the phenotypic as well as any kinase assay. The protocols are applied to a phenotypic pre-lamin A/C splicing assay selected from the ChEMBL database to illustrate the process. The computational protocols make use of the Open PHACTS API and data and are built within the Pipeline Pilot and KNIME workflow tools.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it