Integration of A Deep Learning Classifier with A Random Forest Approach for Predicting Malonylation Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As a newly-identified protein post-translational modification, malonylation is involved in a variety of biological functions. Recognizing malonylation sites in substrates represents an initial but crucial step in elucidating the molecular mechanisms underlying protein malonylation. In this study, we constructed a deep learning (DL) network classifier based on long short-term memory (LSTM) with word embedding (LSTMWE) for the prediction of mammalian malonylation sites. LSTMWE performs better than traditional classifiers developed with common pre-defined feature encodings or a DL classifier based on LSTM with a one-hot vector. The performance of LSTMWE is sensitive to the size of the training set, but this limitation can be overcome by integration with a traditional machine learning (ML) classifier. Accordingly, an integrated approach called LEMP was developed, which includes LSTMWE and the random forest classifier with a novel encoding of enhanced amino acid content. LEMP performs not only better than the individual classifiers but also superior to the currently-available malonylation predictors. Additionally, it demonstrates a promising performance with a low false positive rate, which is highly useful in the prediction application. Overall, LEMP is a useful tool for easily identifying malonylation sites with high confidence. LEMP is available at http://www.bioinfogo.org/lemp.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".