A methodology for analyzing SAGE libraries for cancer profiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serial Analysis of Gene Expression (SAGE) has proven to be an important alternative to microarray techniques for global profiling of mRNA populations. We have developed preprocessing methodologies to address problems in analyzing SAGE data due to noise caused by sequencing error, normalization methodologies to account for libraries sampled at different depths, and missing tag imputation methodologies to aid in the analysis of poorly sampled SAGE libraries. We have also used subspace selection using the Wilcoxon rank sum test to exclude tags that have similar expression levels regardless of source. Using these methodologies we have clustered, using the OPTICS algorithm, 88 SAGE libraries derived from cancerous and normal tissues as well as cell line material. Our results produced eight dense clusters representing ovarian cancer cell line, brain cancer cell line, brain cancer bulk tissue, prostate tissue, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer cell line, normal brain, and normal breast bulk tissue. The ovarian cancer and brain cancer cell lines clustered closely together, leading to a further investigation on possible associations between these two cancer types. We also investigated the utility of gene expression data in the classification between normal and cancerous tissues. Our results indicate that brain and breast cancer libraries have strong identities allowing robust discrimination from their normal counterparts. However, the SAGE expression data provide poor predictive accuracy in discriminating between prostate and ovarian cancers and their respective normal tissues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".