ArticlePloS one2019
An evaluation of different classification algorithms for protein sequence-based reverse vaccinology prediction.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Host-Microbe Interactions: Prospects of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Technologies in Animal Viral Disease Management.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- Prediction of inhibitory peptides against E.coli with desired MIC value.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A descriptor-free machine learning framework to improve antigen discovery for bacterial pathogens.PloS one · 2025Article
- Bag-of-words is competitive with sum-of-embeddings language-inspired representations on protein inference.PloS one · 2025Article
- Primary Factors Influencing the Decision to Vaccinate against COVID-19 in the United States: A Pre-Vaccine Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The AI for Scientific Discovery NetworkPatterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous work has shown that proteins that have the potential to be vaccine candidates can be predicted from features derived from their amino acid sequences. In this work, we make an empirical comparison across various machine learning classifiers on this sequence-based inference problem. Using systematic cross validation on a dataset of 200 known vaccine candidates and 200 negative examples, with a set of 525 features derived from the AA sequences and feature selection applied through a greedy backward elimination approach, we show that simple classification algorithms often perform as well as more complex support vector kernel machines. The work also includes a novel cross validation applied across bacterial species, i.e. the validation proteins all come from a specific species of bacterium not represented in the training set. We termed this type of validation Leave One Bacteria Out Validation (LOBOV).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.