MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241891316 · doi:10.3410/f.735729556.793560891

Faculty Opinions recommendation of A White-Box Machine Learning Approach for Revealing Antibiotic Mechanisms of Action.

2019· dataset· en· W4241891316 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jens Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDefense Threat Reduction AgencyHansjörg Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard UniversityNovo Nordisk FondenNovo NordiskPaul G. Allen Frontiers GroupBroad InstituteMcMaster UniversityNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceWhite boxComputer scienceWhite (mutation)Computational biologyAntibioticsDeep learningAction (physics)BiologyGeneticsPhysicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current machine learning techniques enable robust association of biological signals with measured phenotypes, but these approaches are incapable of identifying causal relationships.Here we develop an integrated "white-box" biochemical screening, network modeling and machine learning approach for revealing causal mechanisms and apply this approach towards understanding antibiotic efficacy.We counter-screen diverse metabolites against bactericidal antibiotics in Escherichia coli and simulate their corresponding metabolic states using a genome-scale metabolic network model.Regression of the measured screening data on model simulations reveals that

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0910.098

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreDataset

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207