standard-GEM: standardization of open-source genome-scale metabolic models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The field of metabolic modelling at the genomescale continues to grow with more models being created and curated. This comes with an increasing demand for adopting common principles regarding transparency and versioning, in addition to standardisation efforts regarding file formats, annotation and testing. Here, we present a standardised template for git-based and GitHub-hosted genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) supporting both new models and curated ones, following FAIR principles (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability), and incorporating bestpractices. standard-GEM facilitates the reuse of GEMs across web services and platforms in the metabolic modelling field and enables automatic validation of GEMs. The use of this template for new models, and its adoption for existing ones, paves the way for increasing model quality, openness, and accessibility with minimal effort. Availability standard-GEM is available from github.com/MetabolicAtlas/standard-GEM under the conditions of the CC BY 4.0 licence along with additional supporting material.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.018 |
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.
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".