MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036943540 · doi:10.1089/omi.2007.4321

Gene Suppression Technologies in High-Throughput Analysis: Front- and Back-side Applications

2007· article· en· W2036943540 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Laflamme, Gilles A. Robichaud

Bibliographic record

VenueOMICS A Journal of Integrative Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAtlantic Cancer Research InstituteUniversité de Moncton
FundersFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsComputational biologyBiologyGeneDNA microarrayGene expressionGene knockoutGene expression profilingRNAFunction (biology)RNA interferenceMicroarray analysis techniquesGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of gene function and gene interactions has changed dramatically with the development of high-throughput systems. It now seems clear that any given gene interacts with a number of different partners, and in a number of different molecular pathways. Traditionally, gene function has been studied using animal knockout systems or naturally occurring mutants. RNA-based gene suppression systems for example, RNA interference or ribozymes, offer a number of advantages over the traditional systems, including ease of use, high specificity, and efficacy in nearly any biological system, and the ability to perform large-scale screens. Since their advent in the mid-1990s, DNA microarrays have been the choice for genome-wide expression analysis. The synergistic effect from the combined use of RNA-based gene suppression and molecular profiling is providing researchers with vast amounts of data. As a result, we are rapidly gaining an understanding of gene interactions and function. This review will focus primarily on gene inactivation systems that have been proven worthy of use in molecular pathway analysis when combined with microarray analysis.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMICS A Journal of Integrative BiologySame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207