MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410393925 · doi:10.1109/tai.2025.3567434

Deep3BPP: Identification of Blood–Brain Barrier Penetrating Peptides Using Word Embedding Feature Extraction Method and CNN-LSTM

2025· article· en· W4410393925 on OpenAlexafffund
Md. Ashikur Rahman, Md. Mamun Ali, Kawsar Ahmed, Imran Mahmud, Francis M. Bui, Li Chen, Mohammad Ali Moni

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceWord embeddingFeature extractionExtraction (chemistry)Feature (linguistics)EmbeddingPattern recognition (psychology)ChemistryChromatographyBiologyPhilosophyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To prevent different chemicals from entering the brain, the blood-brain barrier penetrating peptide (3BPP) acts as a vital barrier between the bloodstream and the central nervous system (CNS). This barrier significantly hinders the treatment of neurological and CNS disorders. 3BPP can get beyond this barrier, making it easier to enter the brain and essential for treating CNS and neurological diseases and disorders. Computational techniques are being explored because traditional laboratory tests for 3BPP identification are costly and time-consuming. In this work, we introduced a novel technique for 3BPP prediction with a hybrid deep learning model. Our proposed model, Deep3BPP, leverages the LSA, a word embedding method for peptide sequence extraction, and integrates CNN with LSTM (CNN-LSTM) for the final prediction model. Deep3BPP performance metrics show a remarkable accuracy of 97.42%, a Kappa value of 0.9257, and an MCC of 0.9362. These findings indicate a more efficient and cost-effective method of identifying 3BPP, which has important implications for researchers in the pharmaceutical and medical industries. Thus, this work offers insightful information that can advance both scientific research and the well-being of people overall.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.358
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueIEEE Transactions on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207