What everyone tries
How often each reagent appears across every parsed condition. This is the query-independent frequency prior, and on this corpus it beats homology retrieval at every level tested.
| Reagent | Class | Conditions | Share |
|---|
What a reagent is used with
Pick a reagent to see which others appear in the same condition. Co-occurrence is computed over the 40 most frequent reagents.
| Appears with | Conditions | Share |
|---|
Against the prior
Bars compare a partner's frequency inside these conditions with its frequency across the whole corpus. Similar heights mean the pairing tells you nothing.
Precipitant classes
Every condition is placed in one of seven classes, or left Unclassified with the reason recorded. Refusing to guess is deliberate.
Distribution
Conditions per class across the whole corpus.
Counts
Unclassified is a recorded outcome, not a gap in the data.
| Class | Conditions | Share |
|---|
Commercial screens
Conditions whose component set matches a published screen well. Formulations were transcribed verbatim from vendor support materials.
| Screen | Matched conditions | Share of matches |
|---|
What this is, and what it is not
An exploration tool over a parsed dataset. It is deliberately not a recommender.
Why there is no "suggest a condition" button
Homology retrieval was tested against a query-independent frequency prior at three levels of granularity, on two split thresholds, under three definitions of ground truth. The prior won every time. Homologues get screened with the same popular screens as everything else, so there is little protein-specific signal to retrieve. A recommender here would dress up "what everyone tries" as a prediction.
Where the numbers come from
| Source | Components | What it is |
|---|
Every component in the released data carries a
parser field, so the deterministic subset can be recovered exactly.