Using Language Representation Learning Approach to Efficiently Identify Protein Complex Categories in Electron Transport Chain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We herein proposed a novel approach based on the language representation learning method to categorize electron complex proteins into 5 types. The idea is stemmed from the the shared characteristics of human language and protein sequence language, thus advanced natural language processing techniques were used for extracting useful features. Specifically, we employed transfer learning and word embedding techniques to analyze electron complex sequences and create efficient feature sets before using a support vector machine algorithm to classify them. During the 5-fold cross-validation processes, seven types of sequence-based features were analyzed to find the optimal features. On an average, our final classification models achieved the accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and MCC of 96 %, 96.1 %, 95.3 %, and 0.86, respectively on cross-validation data. For the independent test data, those corresponding performance scores are 95.3 %, 92.6 %, 94 %, and 0.87. We concluded that using feature extracted using these representation learning methods, the prediction performance of simple machine learning algorithm is on par with existing deep neural network method on the task of categorizing electron complexes while enjoying a much faster way for feature generation. Furthermore, the results also showed that the combination of features learned from the representation learning methods and sequence motif counts helps yield better performance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".