Pathway integration and annotation: building a puzzle with non-matching pieces and no reference picture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological pathways are a broadly used formalism for representing and interpreting the cascade of biochemical reactions underlying cellular and biological mechanisms. Pathway representation provides an ontological link among biomolecules such as RNA, DNA, small molecules, proteins, protein complexes, hormones and genes. Frequently, pathway annotations are used to identify mechanisms linked to genes within affected biological contexts. This important role and the simplicity and elegance in representing complex interactions led to an explosion of pathway representations and databases. Unfortunately, the lack of overlap across databases results in inconsistent enrichment analysis results, unless databases are integrated. However, due to absence of consensus, guidelines or gold standards in pathway definition and representation, integration of data across pathway databases is not straightforward. Despite multiple attempts to provide consolidated pathways, highly related, redundant, poorly overlapping or ambiguous pathways continue to render pathways analysis inconsistent and hard to interpret. Ontology-based integration will promote unbiased, comprehensive yet streamlined analysis of experiments, and will reduce the number of enriched pathways when performing pathway enrichment analysis. Moreover, appropriate and consolidated pathways provide better training data for pathway prediction algorithms. In this manuscript, we describe the current methods for pathway consolidation, their strengths and pitfalls, and highlight directions for future improvements to this research area.
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 | 0.033 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".