Identifying Synergistic Components of Botanical Fungicide Formulations Using Interpretable Graph Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Botanical formulations are promising candidates for developing new biopesticides that can protect crops from pests and diseases while reducing harm to the environment. These biopesticides can be combined with permeation enhancer compounds to boost their efficacy against pests and fungal diseases. However, finding synergistic combinations of these compounds is challenging due to the large and complex chemical space. In this paper, we propose a novel deep learning method that can predict the synergy of botanical products and permeation enhancers based on in vitro assay data. Our method uses a weighted combination of component feature vectors to represent the input mixtures, which enables the model to handle a variable number of components and to interpret the contribution of each component to the synergy. We also employ an ensemble of interpretation methods to provide insights into the underlying mechanisms of synergy. We validate our method by testing the predicted synergistic combinations in wet-lab experiments and show that our method can discover novel and effective biopesticides that would otherwise be difficult to find. Our method is generalizable and applicable to other domains, where predicting mixtures of chemical compounds is important.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".