FlexSADRA: Flexible Structural Alignment using a\nDimensionality Reduction Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A topic of research that is frequently studied in Structural Biology is the problem of determining the degree of similarity between two protein structures. The most common solution is to perform a three dimensional structural alignment on the two structures. Rigid structural alignment algorithms have been developed in the past to accomplish this but treat the protein molecules as immutable structures. Since protein structures can bend and flex, rigid algorithms do not yield accurate results and as a result, flexible structural alignment algorithms have been developed. The problem with these algorithms is that the protein structures are represented using thousands of atomic coordinate variables. This results in a great computational burden due to the large number of degrees of freedom required to account for the flexibility. Past research in dimensionality reduction techniques has shown that a linear dimensionality reduction technique called Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is well suited for high dimensionality reduction. This thesis introduces a new flexible structural alignment algorithm called FlexSADRA, which uses PCA to perform flexible structural alignments. Test results show that FlexSADRA determines better alignments than rigid structural alignment algorithms. Unlike existing rigid and flexible algorithms, FlexSADRA addresses the problem in a significantly lower dimensionality problem space and assesses not only the structural fit but the structural feasibility of the final alignment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".