MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1659685982 · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-16-s11-s1

Highlights from the 5th Symposium on Biological Data Visualization: Part 1

2015· article· en· W1659685982 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Aerts, G. Elisabeta Marai, Kay Nieselt, Cydney Nielsen, Marc Streit, Daniel Weiskopf

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Bioinformatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisualizationData scienceComputer scienceData visualizationProcess (computing)Creative visualizationSoundnessData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-throughput and high-resolution experimental methods in biology pose enormous challenges for current biological data visualization approaches. To address these challenges, researchers in the visualization and bioinformatics communities need to engage in the design, implementation, application, and evaluation of novel visualization techniques and tools that provide insight into large and highly complex data sets. BioVis 2015 - the fifth Symposium on Biological Data Visualization - brought together researchers from the visualization, bioinformatics, and biology communities to establish an interdisciplinary dialogue and promote the sharing of expertise between both meeting participants and the communities at large. The meeting educated, inspired, and engaged visualization researchers in problems in biological data visualization as well as bioinformatics and biology researchers in state-of-the-art visualization research. The symposium serves as a platform for researchers from these fields to increase the impact of data visualization approaches in biology. The BioVis 2015 symposium is affiliated with ISMB, the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology conference, as a Special Interest Group (SIG) and was colocated with ISMB in Dublin, Ireland, July 10-11 2015. Each paper was reviewed by researchers from both the bioinformatics and visualization fields and was evaluated for improvements over state-of-the-art and for scientific soundness. The review process was organized in two review cycles. In the first review cycle, each paper was reviewed by three to four reviewers. In the second review cycle, the primary reviewers checked whether the required revisions for conditionally accepted papers were successfully included. Based on the reviewers' scores, reviews, and recommendations, the BioVis 2015 Paper and Publication Chairs and the BMC Bioinformatics Section Editor together selected those that would be published as a BMC Bioinformatics supplement. The papers from BioVis 2015 appear in two different proceedings: As of the 5th Symposium on Biological Data Visualization: Part 1 in this BMC Bioinformatics supplement and as of the 5th Symposium on Biological Data Visualization: Part 2 in BMC Proceedings (http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcproc/supplements/9/S6). From the 21 papers submitted to BioVis 2015, 9 papers are published in this BMC Bioinformatics supplement and 5 papers are published in BMC Proceedings. The articles in this supplement cover a wide spectrum of challenging problems in biological data visualization and their solutions. Overall, three main themes arise from the BioVis 2015 articles: omics, proteins, and imaging. In the omics field, Younesy et al. [1] describe VisRseq: a user-friendly interface for biologists to use libraries in R that provides a method for linking R-apps with interactive components. Chelaru et al. [2] expand on the design behind Epiviz, another tool for bringing genome visualization and computational environments together. Hennig et al. [3] describe Pan-Tetris and Aurisano et al. [4] describe BactoGeNIE: both systems are designed for comparing different genomes. The XCluSim tool by L'Yi et al. [5] has a more general application field and aims to provide insight into how different clustering results relate to each other. In the protein field, Stolte et al. [6] give an overview of the design decisions that underlie Aquaria, a visual analytics tool for exploring protein-related data. Finally, three papers are included from the imaging field. Topics range from image generation, as discussed by Abdellah et al. [7], to a method for parameter optimization in image processing by Pretorius et al. [9] (e.g. for cell nuclei detection and colour deconvolution for histology), and all the way to graph-based exploration of histology images in the GRAPHIE system proposed by Ding et al. [8]. The diversity of topics covered in this issue highlights the wide range of challenges in applying existing visualization techniques to biological data. With this analysis and formalization of our collective experiences, we hope to motivate visualization researchers to think about new problems and new approaches to pressing problems in biology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC BioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207