Adaptation of video game UVW mapping to 3D visualization of gene expression patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of gene expression patterns within an organism plays a critical role in associating genes with biological processes in both health and disease. During embryonic development the analysis and comparison of different gene expression patterns allows biologists to identify candidate genes that may regulate the formation of normal tissues and organs and to search for genes associated with congenital diseases. No two individual embryos, or organs, are exactly the same shape or size so comparing spatial gene expression in one embryo to that in another is difficult. We will present our efforts in comparing gene expression data collected using both volumetric and projection approaches. Volumetric data is highly accurate but difficult to process and compare. Projection methods use UV mapping to align texture maps to standardized spatial frameworks. This approach is less accurate but is very rapid and requires very little processing. We have built a database of over 180 3D models depicting gene expression patterns mapped onto the surface of spline based embryo models. Gene expression data in different models can easily be compared to determine common regions of activity. Visualization software, both Java and OpenGL optimized for viewing 3D gene expression data will also be demonstrated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".