MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964215490 · doi:10.1142/9789812704856_0054

MODELING GENE EXPRESSION FROM MICROARRAY EXPRESSION DATA WITH STATE-SPACE EQUATIONS

2003· article· en· W1964215490 on OpenAlexaff
Fang‐Xiang Wu, Wenjun Zhang, Anthony Kusalik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpression (computer science)State variableState spaceState (computer science)Computer scienceGene expressionBayesian information criterionState-space representationGeneMathematicsAlgorithmBiologyArtificial intelligenceStatisticsGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a new method to model gene expression from time-course gene expression data. The modelling is in terms of state-space descriptions of linear systems. A cell can be considered to be a system where the behaviours (responses) of the cell depend completely on the current internal state plus any external inputs. The gene expression levels in the cell provide information about the behaviours of the cell. In previously proposed methods, genes were viewed as internal state variables of a cellular system and their expression levels were the values of the intemal state variables. This viewpoint has suffered from the underestimation of the model parameters. Instead, we view genes as the observation variables, whose expression values depend on the current intemal state variables and any external input. Factor analysis is used to identify the internal state variables, and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) is used to determine the number of the internal state variables. By building dynamic equations of the internal state variables and the relationships between the internal state variables and the observation variables (gene expression profiles), we get state-space descriptions of gene expression model. In the present method, model parameters may be unambiguously identified from time-course gene expression data. We apply the method to two time-course gene expression datasets to illustrate it.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations91
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207