MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389217803 · doi:10.1107/s2052252524001246

Community recommendations on cryoEM data archiving and validation

2024· article· en· W4389217803 on OpenAlexaff
Gerard J. Kleywegt, Paul D. Adams, Sarah J. Butcher, Catherine L. Lawson, Alexis Rohou, Peter B. Rosenthal, Sriram Subramaniam, Maya Topf, Sanja Abbott, Philip R. Baldwin, John M. Berrisford, G. Bricogne, Preeti Choudhary, Tristan I. Croll, Radostin Danev, Sai J. Ganesan, Timothy Grant, Aleksandras Gutmanas, Richard A. Henderson, J. Bernard Heymann, Juha T. Huiskonen, Andrei Istrate, Takayuki Kato, Gabriel C. Lander, Shee‐Mei Lok, Steven J. Ludtke, Garib N. Murshudov, Ryan Pye, Grigore Pintilie, Jane S. Richardson, Carsten Sachse, Osman Salih, Sjors H. W. Scheres, G.F. Schroeder, Carlos Óscar S. Sorzano, Scott M. Stagg, Zhe Wang, Rangana Warshamanage, John Westbrook, Martyn Winn, Jasmine Young, S.K. Burley, Jeffrey C. Hoch, Genji Kurisu, Kyle L. Morris, Ardan Patwardhan, Sameer Velankar

Bibliographic record

VenueIUCrJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Bioscience Database CenterMedical Research CouncilNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesEuropean Molecular Biology LaboratoryUniversity of Connecticut Health CenterU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean Bioinformatics InstituteWellcome TrustNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsData scienceComputer scienceFocus (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2020, a workshop was held at EMBL-EBI (Hinxton, UK) to discuss data requirements for deposition and validation of cryoEM structures, with a focus on single-particle analysis. The meeting was attended by 47 experts in data processing, model building and refinement, validation, and archiving of such structures. This report describes the workshop's motivation and history, the topics discussed, and consensus recommendations resulting from the workshop. Some challenges for future methods-development efforts in this area are also highlighted, as is the implementation to date of some of the recommendations.

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)0.233
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.266
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2330.266
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0140.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0210.012
Research integrity0.0200.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.031

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.364 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations34
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIUCrJSame topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207