Control-Plate Regression (CPR) Normalization for High-Throughput Screens with Many Active Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic error is present in all high-throughput screens, lowering measurement accuracy. Because screening occurs at the early stages of research projects, measurement inaccuracy leads to following up inactive features and failing to follow up active features. Current normalization methods take advantage of the fact that most primary-screen features (e.g., compounds) within each plate are inactive, which permits robust estimates of row and column systematic-error effects. Screens that contain a majority of potentially active features pose a more difficult challenge because even the most robust normalization methods will remove at least some of the biological signal. Control plates that contain the same feature in all wells can provide a solution to this problem by providing well-by-well estimates of systematic error, which can then be removed from the treatment plates. We introduce the robust control-plate regression (CPR) method, which uses this approach. CPR's performance is compared to a high-performing primary-screen normalization method in four experiments. These data were also perturbed to simulate screens with large numbers of active features to further assess CPR's performance. CPR performs almost as well as the best performing normalization methods with primary screens and outperforms the Z-score and equivalent methods with screens containing a large proportion of active features.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.009 |
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".