Predicting Metabolic Reaction Networks with Perturbation-Theory Machine Learning (PTML) Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Checking the connectivity (structure) of complex Metabolic Reaction Networks (MRNs) models proposed for new microorganisms with promising properties is an important goal for chemical biology. OBJECTIVE: In principle, we can perform a hand-on checking (Manual Curation). However, this is a challenging task due to the high number of combinations of pairs of nodes (possible metabolic reactions). RESULTS: The CPTML linear model obtained using the LDA algorithm is able to discriminate nodes (metabolites) with the correct assignation of reactions from incorrect nodes with values of accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity in the range of 85-100% in both training and external validation data series. METHODS: In this work, we used Combinatorial Perturbation Theory and Machine Learning techniques to seek a CPTML model for MRNs >40 organisms compiled by Barabasis' group. First, we quantified the local structure of a very large set of nodes in each MRN using a new class of node index called Markov linear indices fk. Next, we calculated CPT operators for 150000 combinations of query and reference nodes of MRNs. Last, we used these CPT operators as inputs of different ML algorithms. CONCLUSION: Meanwhile, PTML models based on Bayesian network, J48-Decision Tree and Random Forest algorithms were identified as the three best non-linear models with accuracy greater than 97.5%. The present work opens the door to the study of MRNs of multiple organisms using PTML models.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".