Open PHACTS computational protocols for <i>in silico</i> target validation of cellular phenotypic screens: knowing the knowns
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.017 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".