Editorial [Hot Topic: Machine Learning Models in Protein Bioinformatics (Guest Editors: Lukasz Kurgan & Yaoqi Zhou)]
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
Bioinformatics is a relatively new field concerned with the computational analysis and prediction of properties of biomolecules, DNA, RNA, and proteins, in particular, on a genomic/proteomic scale. Machine learning models play increasingly important roles in development of novel methodologies, summarization, and high-throughput analysis in the bioinformatics field. Advances in the related area, including protein structure and function prediction [1, 2], structural bioinformatics [3], and peptide analysis [4] were recently summarized, and several works that overview specific sub-areas of protein bioinformatics, such as prediction of secondary structure [5, 6], helical transmembrane proteins [7], localization and targeting [8], binding sites [9, 10], and RNA-binding [11], were published in the last couple of years. This issue provides a comprehensive overview of current efforts related to the analysis of protein data, from sequences to structures to functions. It consists of two parts, the first with five reviews and the second that includes seven original methodology papers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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