MLAFP-XN: Leveraging neural network model for development of antifungal peptide identification tool
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infectious fungi have been an increasing global concern in the present era. A promising approach to tackle this pressing concern involves utilizing Antifungal peptides (AFP) to develop an antifungal drug that can selectively eliminate fungal pathogens from a host with minimal toxicity to the host. Accordingly, identifying precise therapeutic antifungal peptides is crucial for developing effective drugs and treatments. This study proposed MLAFP-XN, a neural network-based strategy for accurately detecting active AFP in sequencing data to achieve this objective. In this work, eight feature extraction techniques and the XGB feature selection strategy are utilized together to present an enhanced methodology. A total of 24 classification models were evaluated, and the most effective four have been selected. Each of these models demonstrated superior accuracy on independent test sets, with respective scores of 97.93 %, 99.47 %, and 99.48 %. Our model outperforms current state of the art methods. In addition, we created a companion website to demonstrate our AFP recognition process and use SHAP to identify the most influential properties.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it