MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115881671 · doi:10.1109/bibe50027.2020.00027

Chaos Game Representations & Deep Learning for Proteome-Wide Protein Prediction

2020· article· en· W3115881671 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Dick, James R. Green

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLeverage (statistics)Artificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkDeep learningProteomeMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chaos Game Representation (CGR) is an emerging means of visualising and representing genomic and proteomic sequences. There exist many open questions related to its effective application to various computational tasks. In this work, we begin to address some of these questions by comparing four variants of the Chaos Game to generate CGR imagery as part of a multi-class classification task to identify the source organism for a given protein. We propose a novel nodal configuration for icosagon and 20-flake CGRs. Using two datasets, we performed fine-tuning using seven deep convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures and report modest performance over random among the 56 test conditions, highlighting certain shortcomings in effectively leveraging CGR in conjunction with deep CNN architectures. Many of the insights from this work will serve to orient subsequent protein-related studies involving CGR-based encoding and be generally applicable to disparate domains seeking to leverage CGR for sequence-type data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207