MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233999394 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14657172

Protein structural class prediction using predicted secondary structure and hydropathy profile

2021· preprint· en· W4233999394 on OpenAlexaff
Syeda Nadia Firdaus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceClass (philosophy)Machine learningFeature (linguistics)Sequence (biology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Protein structure predictionData miningProtein foldingProtein structureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explores machine learning models based on various feature sets to solve the protein structural class prediction problem which is a significant classification problem in bioinformatics. Knowledge of protein structural classes contributes to an understanding of protein folding patterns, and this has made structural class prediction research a major topic of interest. In this thesis, features are extracted from predicted secondary structure and hydropathy sequence using new strategies to classify proteins into one of the four major structural classes: all-α, all-β, α/β, and α+β. The prediction accuracy using these features compares favourably with some existing successful methods. We use Support Vector Machines (SVM), since this learning method has well-known efficiency in solving this classification problem. On a standard dataset (25PDB), the proposed system has an overall accuracy of 89% with as few as 22 features, whereas the previous best performing method had an accuracy of 88% using 2510 features.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207