Comparative network analysis via differential graphlet communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While current protein interaction data provides a rich resource for molecular biology, it mostly lacks condition-specific details. Abundance of mRNA data for most diseases provides potential to model condition-specific transcriptional changes. Transcriptional data enables modeling disease mechanisms, and in turn provide potential treatments. While approaches to compare networks constructed from healthy and disease samples have been developed, they do not provide the complete comparison, evaluations are performed on very small networks, or no systematic network analyses are performed on differential network structures. We propose a novel method for efficiently exploiting network structure information in the comparison between any graphs, and validate results in non-small cell lung cancer. We introduce the notion of differential graphlet community to detect deregulated subgraphs between any graphs such that the network structure information is exploited. The differential graphlet community approach systematically captures network structure differences between any graphs. Instead of using connectivity of each protein or each edge, we used shortest path distributions on differential graphlet communities in order to exploit network structure information on identified deregulated subgraphs. We validated the method by analyzing three non-small cell lung cancer datasets and validated results on four independent datasets. We observed that the shortest path lengths are significantly longer for normal graphs than for tumor graphs between genes that are in differential graphlet communities, suggesting that tumor cells create "shortcuts" between biological processes that may not be present in normal conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".