Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microarray (DNA chip) technology is having a significant impact on genomic studies. Many fields, including drug discovery and toxicological research, will certainly benefit from the use of DNA microarray technology. Microarray analysis is replacing traditional biological assays based on gels, filters and purification columns with small glass chips containing tens of thousands of DNA and protein sequences in agricultural and medical sciences. Microarray functions like biological microprocessors, enabling the rapid and quantitative analysis of gene expression patterns, patient genotypes, drug mechanisms and disease onset and progression on a genomic scale. Image analysis and statistical analysis are two important aspects of microarray technology. Gridding is necessary to accurately identify the location of each of the spots while extracting spot intensities from the microarray images and automating this procedure permits high-throughput analysis. Due to the deficiencies of the equipment that is used to print the arrays, rotations, misalignments, high contaminations with noise and artifacts, solving the grid segmentation problem in an automatic system is not trivial. The existing techniques to solve the automatic grid segmentation problem cover only limited aspect of this challenging problem and requires the user to specify or make assumptions about the spotsize, rows and columns in the grid and boundary conditions. An automatic gridding and spot quantification technique is proposed, which takes a matrix of pixels or a microarray image as input and makes no assumptions about the spotsize, rows and columns in the grid and is found to effective on datasets from GEO, Stanford genomic laboratories and on images obtained from private repositories. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2004 .V53. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 43-03, page: 0891. Adviser: Luis Rueda. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2004.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".