MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239833383 · doi:10.1002/0471250953.bi0807s38

Using the Reactome Database

2012· article· en· W4239833383 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robin Haw, Lincoln Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Bioinformatics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsDatabaseBiological pathwayComputer scienceModel organismComputational biologyZebrafishBioinformaticsBiologyGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is considerable interest in the bioinformatics community in creating pathway databases. The Reactome project (a collaboration between the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York University Medical Center, and the European Bioinformatics Institute) is one such pathway database and collects structured information on all the biological pathways and processes in the human. It is an expert‐authored and peer‐reviewed, curated collection of well‐documented molecular reactions that span the gamut from simple intermediate metabolism to signaling pathways and complex cellular events. This information is supplemented with likely orthologous molecular reactions in mouse, rat, zebrafish, worm, and other model organisms. This unit describes how to use the Reactome database to learn the steps of a biological pathway; navigate and browse through the Reactome database; identify the pathways in which a molecule of interest is involved; use the Pathway and Expression analysis tools to search the database for and visualize possible connections within user‐supplied experimental data set and Reactome pathways; and the Species Comparison tool to compare human and model organism pathways. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 38:8.7.1‐8.7.23. © 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.018

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations46
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols in BioinformaticsSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207