MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626551042 · doi:10.15866/iremos.v10i2.11412

Homology Modeling: an Overview of Fundamentals and Tools

2017· article· en· W2626551042 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review on Modelling and Simulations (IREMOS) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomology modelingComputer scienceComputational biologyHomology (biology)Protein structure predictionProtein structureBiologyAmino acidGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resolving the three dimensional structure of a protein is a critical step in modern drug discovery today. Homology modeling is a powerful tool that can efficiently predict protein structures from their amino acid sequence. Although it might sound simple enough, homology modeling, in fact, has to pass through several sophisticated steps before it can predict an accurate structure of a protein. These steps include template identification, alignment with the template, model construction and many post-modeling processes. Here, we describe in details these different steps, discuss the strengths and limitations of the methods and list a number of successful homology modelling applications in the literature. The objective of this review is to shed light on this extremely useful tool and highlight many case studies in this area of active research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.267 · 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