MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988035834 · doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2009.03.068

A picture is worth a thousand words: Genomics to phenomics in the yeast <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>

2009· review· en· W1988035834 on OpenAlexafffund
Franco J. Vizeacoumar, Yolanda Chong, Charles Boone, Brenda Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Letters · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Genomics InstituteGenome CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsPhenomicsDECIPHERComputational biologyGenomicsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeYeastVariety (cybernetics)Functional genomicsComputer scienceData scienceBiologyGenomeBiotechnologyBioinformaticsGeneticsArtificial intelligenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large scale cell biological experiments are beginning to be applied as a systems-level approach to decipher mechanisms that govern cellular function in health and disease. The use of automated microscopes combined with digital imaging, machine learning and other analytical tools has enabled high-content screening (HCS) in a variety of experimental systems. Successful HCS screens demand careful attention to assay development, data acquisition methods and available genomic tools. In this minireview, we highlight developments in this field pertaining to yeast cell biology and discuss how we have combined HCS with methods for automated yeast genetics (synthetic genetic array (SGA) analysis) to enable systematic analysis of cell biological phenotypes in a variety of genetic backgrounds.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.010

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS LettersSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207