MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002900187 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000718

An “Electronic Fluorescent Pictograph” Browser for Exploring and Analyzing Large-Scale Biological Data Sets

2007· article· en· W2002900187 on OpenAlexafffund
Ben Vinegar, Hardeep K. Nahal-Bose, Ron Ammar, Greg Wilson, Nicholas J. Provart

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsMicroarray databasesComputer scienceMicroarray analysis techniquesArabidopsisBig dataScale (ratio)Data miningData scienceBioinformaticsBiologyGeneGeneticsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The exploration of microarray data and data from other high-throughput projects for hypothesis generation has become a vital aspect of post-genomic research. For the non-bioinformatics specialist, however, many of the currently available tools provide overwhelming amounts of data that are presented in a non-intuitive way. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In order to facilitate the interpretation and analysis of microarray data and data from other large-scale data sets, we have developed a tool, which we have dubbed the electronic Fluorescent Pictograph - or eFP - Browser, available at http://www.bar.utoronto.ca/, for exploring microarray and other data for hypothesis generation. This eFP Browser engine paints data from large-scale data sets onto pictographic representations of the experimental samples used to generate the data sets. We give examples of using the tool to present Arabidopsis gene expression data from the AtGenExpress Consortium (Arabidopsis eFP Browser), data for subcellular localization of Arabidopsis proteins (Cell eFP Browser), and mouse tissue atlas microarray data (Mouse eFP Browser). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The eFP Browser software is easily adaptable to microarray or other large-scale data sets from any organism and thus should prove useful to a wide community for visualizing and interpreting these data sets for hypothesis generation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.014

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2,605
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207