MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090537645 · doi:10.2202/1544-6115.1436

A Bayesian Analysis Strategy for Cross-Study Translation of Gene Expression Biomarkers

2009· article· en· W2090537645 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph E. Lucas, Carlos M. Carvalho, Mike West

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsBooth University College
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsComputational biologyMultivariate statisticsGene expression profilingBayesian probabilityComputer scienceBiologyBioinformaticsGene expressionData miningGeneArtificial intelligenceMachine learningGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a strategy for the analysis of experimentally derived gene expression signatures and their translation to human observational data. Sparse multivariate regression models are used to identify expression signature gene sets representing downstream biological pathway events following interventions in designed experiments. When translated into in vivo human observational data, analysis using sparse latent factor models can yield multiple quantitative factors characterizing expression patterns that are often more complex than in the controlled, in vitro setting. The estimation of common patterns in expression that reflect all aspects of covariation evident in vivo offers an enhanced, modular view of the complexity of biological associations of signature genes. This can identify substructure in the biological process under experimental investigation and improved biomarkers of clinical outcomes. We illustrate the approach in a detailed study from an oncogene intervention experiment where in vivo factor profiling of an in vitro signature generates biological insights related to underlying pathway activities and chromosomal structure, and leads to refinements of cancer recurrence risk stratification across several cancer studies.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular BiologySame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207