Memote: A community driven effort towards a standardized genome-scale metabolic model test suite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several studies have shown that neither the formal representation nor the functional requirements of genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) are precisely defined. Without a consistent standard, comparability, reproducibility, and interoperability of models across groups and software tools cannot be guaranteed. Here, we present memote ( https://github.com/opencobra/memote ) an open-source software containing a community-maintained, standardized set of me tabolic mo del te sts. The tests cover a range of aspects from annotations to conceptual integrity and can be extended to include experimental datasets for automatic model validation. In addition to testing a model once, memote can be configured to do so automatically, i.e., while building a GEM. A comprehensive report displays the model’s performance parameters, which supports informed model development and facilitates error detection. Memote provides a measure for model quality that is consistent across reconstruction platforms and analysis software and simplifies collaboration within the community by establishing workflows for publicly hosted and version controlled models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".