MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603853601 · doi:10.1186/s13321-017-0207-1

Critical Assessment of Small Molecule Identification 2016: automated methods

2017· article· en· W2603853601 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma Schymanski, Christoph Ruttkies, Martin Krauß, Céline Brouard, Tobias Kind, Kai Dührkop, Felicity Allen, Arpana Vaniya, Dries Verdegem, Sebastian Böcker, Juho Rousu, Huibin Shen, Hiroshi Tsugawa, Tanvir Sajed, Oliver Fiehn, Bart Ghesquière, Steffen Neumann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cheminformatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAcademy of FinlandLeibniz-GemeinschaftDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMetabolomics Innovation CentreEuropean Commission
KeywordsComputer scienceIdentification (biology)CONTESTMachine learningAnnotationRanking (information retrieval)Artificial intelligenceMetadataData miningInformation retrievalData scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The fourth round of the Critical Assessment of Small Molecule Identification (CASMI) Contest ( www.casmi-contest.org ) was held in 2016, with two new categories for automated methods. This article covers the 208 challenges in Categories 2 and 3, without and with metadata, from organization, participation, results and post-contest evaluation of CASMI 2016 through to perspectives for future contests and small molecule annotation/identification. RESULTS: The Input Output Kernel Regression (CSI:IOKR) machine learning approach performed best in "Category 2: Best Automatic Structural Identification-In Silico Fragmentation Only", won by Team Brouard with 41% challenge wins. The winner of "Category 3: Best Automatic Structural Identification-Full Information" was Team Kind (MS-FINDER), with 76% challenge wins. The best methods were able to achieve over 30% Top 1 ranks in Category 2, with all methods ranking the correct candidate in the Top 10 in around 50% of challenges. This success rate rose to 70% Top 1 ranks in Category 3, with candidates in the Top 10 in over 80% of the challenges. The machine learning and chemistry-based approaches are shown to perform in complementary ways. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in (semi-)automated fragmentation methods for small molecule identification has been substantial. The achieved high rates of correct candidates in the Top 1 and Top 10, despite large candidate numbers, open up great possibilities for high-throughput annotation of untargeted analysis for "known unknowns". As more high quality training data becomes available, the improvements in machine learning methods will likely continue, but the alternative approaches still provide valuable complementary information. Improved integration of experimental context will also improve identification success further for "real life" annotations. The true "unknown unknowns" remain to be evaluated in future CASMI contests. Graphical abstract .

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)0.104
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1040.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.023

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations192
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of CheminformaticsSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207