Systematic selection of chemical fingerprint features improves the Gibbs energy prediction of biochemical reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Accurate and wide-ranging prediction of thermodynamic parameters for biochemical reactions can facilitate deeper insights into the workings and the design of metabolic systems. RESULTS: Here, we introduce a machine learning method with chemical fingerprint-based features for the prediction of the Gibbs free energy of biochemical reactions. From a large pool of 2D fingerprint-based features, this method systematically selects a small number of relevant ones and uses them to construct a regularized linear model. Since a manual selection of 2D structure-based features can be a tedious and time-consuming task, requiring expert knowledge about the structure-activity relationship of chemical compounds, the systematic feature selection step in our method offers a convenient means to identify relevant 2D fingerprint-based features. By comparing our method with state-of-the-art linear regression-based methods for the standard Gibbs free energy prediction, we demonstrated that its prediction accuracy and prediction coverage are most favorable. Our results show direct evidence that a number of 2D fingerprints collectively provide useful information about the Gibbs free energy of biochemical reactions and that our systematic feature selection procedure provides a convenient way to identify them. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our software is freely available for download at http://sfb.kaust.edu.sa/Pages/Software.aspx. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".