MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1935582206 · doi:10.1186/1745-6150-1-27

Generalization of DNA microarray dispersion properties: microarray equivalent of t-distribution.

2006· article· en· W1935582206 on OpenAlexafffund
Jaroslav Novák, Seon‐Young Kim, Jun Xu, Olga Modlich, David J. Volsky, David Honys, Joan L. Slonczewski, Douglas A. Bell, Fred R. Blattner, Eduardo Blumwald, Marjan Boerma, Manuel G. Cosío, Zoran Gatalica, Marián Hajdúch, Juan Hidalgo, Roderick R. McInnes, Merrill C. Miller, Milena Penkowa, Michael S. Rolph, Jordan B. Sottosanto, René St‐Arnaud, Michael J. Szego, David Twell, Charles Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Direct · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeDirectorate for Biological SciencesIMK Almene FondNational Institutes of HealthNational Science FoundationH. Lundbeck A/SLundbeckfondenGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsStandard deviationBiologyNormal distributionReplicateDNA microarrayStatisticsGaussianNormalityComputational biologyGeneGene expressionMathematicsGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: DNA microarrays are a powerful technology that can provide a wealth of gene expression data for disease studies, drug development, and a wide scope of other investigations. Because of the large volume and inherent variability of DNA microarray data, many new statistical methods have been developed for evaluating the significance of the observed differences in gene expression. However, until now little attention has been given to the characterization of dispersion of DNA microarray data. RESULTS: Here we examine the expression data obtained from 682 Affymetrix GeneChips with 22 different types and we demonstrate that the Gaussian (normal) frequency distribution is characteristic for the variability of gene expression values. However, typically 5 to 15% of the samples deviate from normality. Furthermore, it is shown that the frequency distributions of the difference of expression in subsets of ordered, consecutive pairs of genes (consecutive samples) in pair-wise comparisons of replicate experiments are also normal. We describe a consecutive sampling method, which is employed to calculate the characteristic function approximating standard deviation and show that the standard deviation derived from the consecutive samples is equivalent to the standard deviation obtained from individual genes. Finally, we determine the boundaries of probability intervals and demonstrate that the coefficients defining the intervals are independent of sample characteristics, variability of data, laboratory conditions and type of chips. These coefficients are very closely correlated with Student's t-distribution. CONCLUSION: In this study we ascertained that the non-systematic variations possess Gaussian distribution, determined the probability intervals and demonstrated that the K(alpha) coefficients defining these intervals are invariant; these coefficients offer a convenient universal measure of dispersion of data. The fact that the K(alpha) distributions are so close to t-distribution and independent of conditions and type of arrays suggests that the quantitative data provided by Affymetrix technology give "true" representation of physical processes, involved in measurement of RNA abundance. REVIEWERS: This article was reviewed by Yoav Gilad (nominated by Doron Lancet), Sach Mukherjee (nominated by Sandrine Dudoit) and Amir Niknejad and Shmuel Friedland (nominated by Neil Smalheiser).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology DirectSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207