MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W203965441

Bayesian Optimization Algorithm for Non-unique Oligonucleotide Probe Selection

2009· article· en· W203965441 on OpenAlexaff
Laleh Soltan Ghoraie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA microarrayAlgorithmSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceHeuristicSet (abstract data type)Bayesian probabilityBayesian optimizationOligomer restrictionSample (material)OligonucleotideData miningArtificial intelligenceBiologyDNAGene
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One important application of DNA microarrays is measuring the expression levels of genes. The quality of the microarrays design which includes selecting short Oligonucleotide sequences (probes) to be affixed on the surface of the microarray becomes a major issue. A good design is the one that contains the minimum possible number of probes while having an acceptable ability in identifying the targets existing in the sample. This thesis focuses on the problem of computing the minimal set of probes which is able to identify each target of a sample, referred to as Non-unique Oligonucleotide Probe Selection. We present the application of an Estimation of Distribution Algorithm named Bayesian Optimization Algorithm (BOA) to this problem. This approach considers integration of BOA and one simple heuristic. The obtained results compare favorably with the state-of-the-art methods. We also present application of our method in integration with decoding approach in a multiobjective optimization framework for solving the problem in the case of multiple targets in the sample.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classification→French-language works237,207→