A review of mathematical representations of biomolecular data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, machine learning (ML) has established itself in various worldwide benchmarking competitions in computational biology, including Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) and Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenges. However, the intricate structural complexity and high ML dimensionality of biomolecular datasets obstruct the efficient application of ML algorithms in the field. In addition to data and algorithm, an efficient ML machinery for biomolecular predictions must include structural representation as an indispensable component. Mathematical representations that simplify the biomolecular structural complexity and reduce ML dimensionality have emerged as a prime winner in D3R Grand Challenges. This review is devoted to the recent advances in developing low-dimensional and scalable mathematical representations of biomolecules in our laboratory. We discuss three classes of mathematical approaches, including algebraic topology, differential geometry, and graph theory. We elucidate how the physical and biological challenges have guided the evolution and development of these mathematical apparatuses for massive and diverse biomolecular data. We focus the performance analysis on protein-ligand binding predictions in this review although these methods have had tremendous success in many other applications, such as protein classification, virtual screening, and the predictions of solubility, solvation free energies, toxicity, partition coefficients, protein folding stability changes upon mutation, etc.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".