MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052640695 · doi:10.1159/000094205

Combined multicolor-FISH and immunostaining

2006· review· en· W2052640695 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C.J. Ye, Joshua B. Stevens, G. Liu, K.J. Ye, Fengtang Yang, S.W. Bremer, Henry H. Heng

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetic and Genome Research · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsBiologyComputational biologyGenomeFish <Actinopterygii>ImmunostainingChromosomeFunction (biology)Computer scienceEvolutionary biologyGeneGeneticsFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combination of multicolor-FISH and immunostaining produces a powerful visual method to analyze in situ DNA-protein interactions and dynamics. Representing one of the major technical improvements of FISH technology, this method has been used extensively in the field of chromosome and genome research, as well as in clinical studies, and serves as an important tool to bridge molecular analysis and cytological description. In this short review, the development and significance of this method will be briefly summarized using a limited number of examples to illustrate the large body of literature. In addition to descriptions of technical considerations, future applications and perspectives have also been discussed focusing specifically on the areas of genome organization, gene expression and medical research. We anticipate that this versatile method will play an important role in the study of the structure and function of the dynamic genome and for the development of potential applications for medical research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetic and Genome ResearchSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207