MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391793851 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1s.2163

Protein – protein Interaction Mapping of Neurodegenerative Disease

2023· article· en· W4391793851 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Samanta, Semanti Ghosh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiotin and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtein–protein interactionDiseaseNeuroscienceComputational biologyMedicineBiologyGeneticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant health risks are associated with neurodegenerative disorders. A variety of age-related factors have developed recently with the increase in the older population. These illnesses are characterised by the accumulation of proteins with altered physicochemical properties and the progressive degradation of neurons in the peritoneal and brain tissues. Some of the most challenging issues that modern nations face as their populations get older are Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Huntington's, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The four types of proteins that are involved in these illnesses are Huntingtin, Alpha-synuclein, Amyloid beta, and TAR DNA-binding protein of 43 kDa (TDP-43). Dopamine release and transport may be regulated by alpha-synuclein. Tau, a microtubule-associated protein, binds to STXBP1, a critical component of the synaptic vesicle exocytotic machinery, reducing caspase-3 activation potential function in synaptic vesicle exocytosis, which reduces neuronal sensitivity to various apoptotic events. The String database was used to identify protein-protein interactions between targets for neurodegenerative diseases that overlapped and were therefore considered to be potential targets. These disorders are linked to four different gene types: APBA2, TARDBP, HTT, and SNCA. Twenty possible neurodegenerative diseases were present in all.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicBiotin and Related StudiesFrench-language works237,207