<strong>A Simple Method to </strong><strong>Classification</strong> <strong>&alpha;-Amylase and &alpha;-Glucosidase Inhibitors</strong><strong> Using </strong><strong>LDA and Decision Trees</strong>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this report are used two datasets involving the main antidiabetic enzymes targets α-amylase and α-glucosidase. The prediction of α-amylase and α -glucosidase inhibitory activity as Antidiabetic Agents is carried out using LDA and classification trees (CT). A large data set of 640 compounds for α-amylase and 1546 compounds in the case of α-glucosidase are selected to develop the tree model. In the case of CT-J48 have the better classification model performances for both targets with values above 80- 90% for the training and prediction sets, correspondingly. The best model shows an accuracy higher than 95% for training set; the model was also validated using 10-fold cross-validation procedure and through a test set achieving accuracies values of 85.32% and 86.80%, correspondingly. The main descriptors that influence the inhibitory activity of the antidiabetic enzymes are interpreted. Additionally, the obtained model is compared with other approaches previously published in the international literature showing better or goodness results. Finally, we can say that, the present results provided a double target approach for increasing the estimation of antidiabetic chemicals identification aimed by double-way workflow in virtual screenings pipelines
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 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 | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".