MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W66296548

Automated Extraction of Protein Mutation Impacts from the Biomedical Literature

2011· article· en· W66296548 on OpenAlexaff
Nona Naderi

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation extractionInformation retrievalMutationOntologyOrganismPrecision and recallFocus (optics)Computational biologyData miningGeneBiologyGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutations as sources of evolution have long been the focus of attention in the
\nbiomedical literature. Accessing the mutational information and their impacts
\non protein properties facilitates research in various domains, such as
\nenzymology and pharmacology. However, manually reading through the rich and fast growing repository
\nof biomedical literature is expensive and time-consuming. A number of manually curated
\ndatabases, such as BRENDA (http://www.brenda-enzymes.org), try to index and provide this
\ninformation; yet the provided data seems to be incomplete. Thus, there is a
\ngrowing need for automated approaches to extract this information.
\nIn this work, we present a system to automatically extract and summarize impact
\ninformation from protein mutations.
\nOur system extraction module is split into subtasks: organism analysis,
\nmutation detection, protein property extraction and impact
\nanalysis. Organisms, as sources of proteins, are required to be extracted to
\nhelp disambiguation of genes and proteins. Thus, our system extracts and
\ngrounds organisms to NCBI. We detect mutation series to correctly ground our detected
\nimpacts. Our system also extracts the affected protein properties as well as the magnitude of the
\neffects.
\nThe output of our system is populated to an OWL-DL ontology, which can then be queried to provide structured information. The performance
\n of the system is evaluated on both external and internal corpora and
\n databases. The results show the reliability of the approaches. Our Organism
\n extraction system achieves a precision and recall of 95%
\nand 94% and a grounding accuracy of 97.5% on the OT corpus. On the manually
\nannotated corpus of Linneaus-100, the results show a precision and recall of
\n99% and 97% and grounding with an accuracy of 97.4%.
\nIn the impact detection task, our system achieves a precision and recall of
\n70.4%-71.8% and 71.2%-71.3% on a manually annotated documents. Our system grounds the detected
\nimpacts with an accuracy of 70.1%-71.7% on the manually annotated documents
\nand a precision and recall of 57%-57.5% and 82.5%-84.2% against the BRENDA data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207