Analysis of AlphaMissense data in different protein groups and structural context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single amino acid substitutions can profoundly affect protein folding, dynamics, and function. The ability to discern between benign and pathogenic substitutions is pivotal for therapeutic interventions and research directions. Given the limitations in experimental examination of these variants, AlphaMissense has emerged as a promising predictor of the pathogenicity of missense variants. Since heterogenous performance on different types of proteins can be expected, we assessed the efficacy of AlphaMissense across several protein groups (e.g. soluble, transmembrane, and mitochondrial proteins) and regions (e.g. intramembrane, membrane interacting, and high confidence AlphaFold segments) using ClinVar data for validation. Our comprehensive evaluation showed that AlphaMissense delivers outstanding performance, with MCC scores predominantly between 0.6 and 0.74. We observed low performance on disordered datasets and ClinVar data related to the CFTR ABC protein. However, a superior performance was shown when benchmarked against the high quality CFTR2 database. Our results with CFTR emphasizes AlphaMissense's potential in pinpointing functional hot spots, with its performance likely surpassing benchmarks calculated from ClinVar and ProteinGym datasets.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".