Gibbs Free Energy, a Thermodynamic Measure of Protein–Protein Interactions, Correlates with Neurologic Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern network science has been used to reveal new and often fundamental aspects of brain network organization in physiological as well as pathological conditions. As a consequence, these discoveries, which relate to network hierarchy, hubs and network interactions, have begun to change the paradigms of neurodegenerative disorders. In this paper, we explore the use of thermodynamics for protein–protein network interactions in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), multiple sclerosis (MS), traumatic brain injury and epilepsy. To assess the validity of using network interactions in neurological diseases, we investigated the relationship between network thermodynamics and molecular systems biology for these neurological disorders. In order to uncover whether there was a correlation between network organization and biological outcomes, we used publicly available RNA transcription data from individual patients with these neurological conditions, and correlated these molecular profiles with their respective individual disability scores. We found a linear correlation (Pearson correlation of −0.828) between disease disability (a clinically validated measurement of a person’s functional status) and Gibbs free energy (a thermodynamic measure of protein–protein interactions). In other words, we found an inverse relationship between disease disability and thermodynamic energy. Because a larger degree of disability correlated with a larger negative drop in Gibbs free energy in a linear disability-dependent fashion, it could be presumed that the progression of neuropathology such as is seen in Alzheimer’s disease could potentially be prevented by therapeutically correcting the changes in Gibbs free energy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".