GenRate: A Generative Model that Reveals Novel Transcripts in Genome-Tiling Microarray Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide microarray designs containing millions to hundreds of millions of probes are available for a variety of mammals, including mouse and human. These genome tiling arrays can potentially lead to significant advances in science and medicine, e.g., by indicating new genes and alternative primary and secondary transcripts. While bottom-up pattern matching techniques (e.g., hierarchical clustering) can be used to find gene structures in microarray data, we believe the many interacting hidden variables and complex noise patterns more naturally lead to an analysis based on generative models. We describe a generative model of tiling data and show how the sum-product algorithm can be used to infer hybridization noise, probe sensitivity, new transcripts, and alternative transcripts. The method, called GenRate, maximizes a global scoring function that enables multiple transcripts to compete for ownership of putative probes. We apply GenRate to a new exon tiling dataset from mouse chromosome 4 and show that it makes significantly more predictions than a previously described hierarchical clustering method at the same false positive rate. GenRate correctly predicts many known genes and also predicts new gene structures. As new problems arise, additional hidden variables can be incorporated into the model in a principled fashion, so we believe that GenRate will prove to be a useful tool in the new era of genome-wide tiling 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".