MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonparametric Inference for Local Extrema with Application to Oligonucleotide Microarray Data in Yeast Genome

2005· article· en· W2020183758 on OpenAlexaff
Peter X.‐K. Song, Xin Gao, Rui Liu, Wen Le

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaxima and minimaSmoothingNonparametric statisticsInferenceKernel (algebra)AlgorithmReplication (statistics)MathematicsComputer scienceGeneticsBiologyComputational biologyStatisticsArtificial intelligenceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying local extrema of expression profiles is one primary objective in some cDNA microarray experiments. To study the replication dynamics of the yeast genome, for example, local peaks of hybridization intensity profiles correspond to putative replication origins. We propose a nonparametric kernel smoothing (NKS) technique to detect local hybridization intensity extrema across chromosomes. The novelty of our approach is that we base our inference procedures on equilibrium points, namely those locations at which the first derivative of the intensity curve is zero. The proposed smoothing technique provides both point and interval estimation for the location of local extrema. Also, this technique can be used to test for the hypothesis of either one or multiple suspected locations being the true equilibrium points. We illustrate the proposed method on a microarray data set from an experiment designed to study the replication origins in the yeast genome, in that the locations of autonomous replication sequence (ARS) elements are identified through the equilibrium points of the smoothed intensity profile curve. Our method found a few ARS elements that were not detected by the current smoothing methods such as the Fourier convolution smoothing.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207