MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019879090 · doi:10.1145/2147805.2147807

Biological assessment of grid and spot detection in cDNA microarray images

2011· article· en· W2019879090 on OpenAlexaff
Iman Rezaeian, Luis Rueda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThresholdingComplementary DNAPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceMicroarraySegmentationExpression (computer science)Artificial intelligenceImage segmentationData miningGene expressionGeneBiologyImage (mathematics)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main issues of the analysis of microarray data is quantification of gene expression. The quantified signal intensities should be linearly related to the expression levels of the corresponding genes. In this paper, we present a biological assessment for detection and segmentation of grids and spots, and quantification of gene expression in cDNA microarray images. The results on several dilution steps on cDNA microarray images show that the proposed method can detect the location of the spots very effectively even for noisy conditions based on a parameterless multilevel thresholding algorithm. The proposed method can also segment and quantify the intensity of each probe with a nearly perfect degree of accuracy. This guarantees that the proposed method estimates the correct intensity of each spot with a high degree of accuracy and relates it to the expression levels of the corresponding genes very well.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207