Genome-scale metabolic models in translational medicine: the current status and potential of machine learning in improving the effectiveness of the models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genome-scale metabolic model (GEM) has emerged as one of the leading modeling approaches for systems-level metabolic studies and has been widely explored for a broad range of organisms and applications. Owing to the development of genome sequencing technologies and available biochemical data, it is possible to reconstruct GEMs for model and non-model microorganisms as well as for multicellular organisms such as humans and animal models. GEMs will evolve in parallel with the availability of biological data, new mathematical modeling techniques and the development of automated GEM reconstruction tools. The use of high-quality, context-specific GEMs, a subset of the original GEM in which inactive reactions are removed while maintaining metabolic functions in the extracted model, for model organisms along with machine learning (ML) techniques could increase their applications and effectiveness in translational research in the near future. Here, we briefly review the current state of GEMs, discuss the potential contributions of ML approaches for more efficient and frequent application of these models in translational research, and explore the extension of GEMs to integrative cellular models.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".