MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970557025 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2014.0057

Asynchronous Stochastic Boolean Networks as Gene Network Models

2014· article· en· W1970557025 on OpenAlexaff
Peican Zhu, Jie Han

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationBoolean networkGene regulatory networkComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)ENCODEBiological networkAttractorStochastic processTheoretical computer scienceBoolean functionMathematicsGeneAlgorithmBiologyComputational biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Logical models have widely been used to gain insights into the biological behavior of gene regulatory networks (GRNs). Most logical models assume a synchronous update of the genes' states in a GRN. However, this may not be appropriate, because each gene may require a different period of time for changing its state. In this article, asynchronous stochastic Boolean networks (ASBNs) are proposed for investigating various asynchronous state-updating strategies in a GRN. As in stochastic computation, ASBNs use randomly permutated stochastic sequences to encode probability. Investigated by several stochasticity models, a GRN is considered to be subject to noise and external perturbation. Hence, both stochasticity and asynchronicity are considered in the state evolution of a GRN. As a case study, ASBNs are utilized to investigate the dynamic behavior of a T helper network. It is shown that ASBNs are efficient in evaluating the steady-state distributions (SSDs) of the network with random gene perturbation. The SSDs found by using ASBNs show the robustness of the attractors of the T helper network, when various stochasticity and asynchronicity models are considered to investigate its dynamic behavior.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207