MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559115594

Proteome Analyst: An Overview

2004· article· en· W2559115594 on OpenAlexaff
Alona Fyshe, Roman Eisner, Russell Greiner, Paul Lu, David Meeuwis, Brett Poulin, Duane Szafron, David S. Wishart, Chris Upton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene ontologyComputer scienceUploadParsingUniProtProteomeOntologyClassifier (UML)Set (abstract data type)Function (biology)Class (philosophy)Natural language processingComputational biologyArtificial intelligenceGeneBioinformaticsBiologyProgramming languageWorld Wide WebGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PA provides 2 main services: •Analysis ( ) •Upload sequences in fastA format •Process the sequences with tools (runs BLAST, Prosite) •Parse tokens from the tool’s output •Use tokens to predict the class of the protein (Ex. Hydrolase Activity, Cytoplasm) using Machine Learning. •Provide an Explanation ( ) for the prediction •Custom Classifer Creation ( ) •Upload Labeled sequences in fastA format •Process the sequences with tools (runs BLAST, Prosite) •Parse tokens from the tool’s output and use them to detect similarities within classes using Machine Learning. •Use detected similarities to classify new proteins with unknown properties. What does PA do? PA recently finished training a new Gene Ontology (GO) Function classifier. •12 Classes •102,225 sequence training set •Built using EBI’s GO mapping & the SwissProt database •Precision: 93% •Recall: 97% Also see Proteome Analyst’s Gene Ontology Poster Gene Ontology Function

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)0.005
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: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.062

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreSoftware

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207