MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407679411 · doi:10.3390/pr13020581

Statistical Analysis of the Effect of Simulation Time on the Results of Molecular Dynamics Studies of Food Proteins: A Study of the Ara h 6 Peanut Protein

2025· article· en· W4407679411 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea Smith, Vijaya Raghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatistical analysisDynamics (music)Molecular dynamicsFood scienceFood proteinChemistryComputational biologyBiological systemEconometricsBiologyStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GROMACS MD simulations of food proteins and processes are often run over relatively short simulation lengths due to their high computational power demand. As long-timescale simulations are not always feasible, the purpose of this study was to determine, statistically, how simulation time affects conclusions drawn from GROMACS MD studies of food proteins. The Ara h 6 peanut allergen, undergoing heat processing at 300 K, 350 K, 400 K and 450 K, was used as the model in this study, and 2 ns, 20 ns and 200 ns GROMACS MD simulation lengths were investigated. The statistical analysis performed, using both one-way and two-way ANOVA tests, suggested that, depending on the selected simulation length, different final conclusions may be drawn regarding the effect that thermal processing temperature has on the geometric features of the Ara h 6 allergen. This was observed for many of the geometric features used to characterize the Ara h 6 allergen in this study, including RMSD, Rg, total number of intra-peptide hydrogen bonds and SASA. An inadequate sample size was, however, identified as a major limitation in this study.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207