MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005132411 · doi:10.1089/omi.2006.10.474

Microarray Studies of Gene Expression in Fish

2006· review· en· W2005132411 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOMICS A Journal of Integrative Biology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Marine Biosciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZebrafishDNA microarrayBiologyMicroarrayCatfishComputational biologyModel organismFish <Actinopterygii>Gene expressionTranscriptomeGene chip analysisAmpliconGeneticsGeneBioinformaticsFisheryPolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of microarrays for the study of various aspects of fish physiology has seen a spectacular increase in recent years. From early studies with model species, such as zebrafish, to current studies with commercially important species, such as salmonids, catfish, carp, and flatfish, microarray technology has emerged as a key tool for understanding developmental processes as well as basic physiology. In addition, microarrays are being applied to the fields of ecotoxicology and nutrigenomics. A number of different platforms are now available, ranging from microarrays containing cDNA amplicons to oligomers of various sizes. High-density microarrays containing hundreds of thousands of distinct oligomers have been developed for zebrafish and catfish. As this exciting technology advances, so will our understanding of global gene expression in fish. Furthermore, lessons learned from this experimentally tractable group of organisms can also be applied to more advanced organisms such as humans.

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.316 · 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