Using Qualitative Probability in Reverse-Engineering Gene Regulatory Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates the use of qualitative probabilistic networks (QPNs) to aid Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs) in the process of learning the structure of gene regulatory networks from microarray gene expression data. We present a study which shows that QPNs define monotonic relations that are capable of identifying regulatory interactions in a manner that is less susceptible to the many sources of uncertainty that surround gene expression data. Moreover, we construct a model that maps the regulatory interactions of genetic networks to QPN constructs and show its capability in providing a set of candidate regulators for target genes, which is subsequently used to establish a prior structure that the DBN learning algorithm can use and which 1) distinguishes spurious correlations from true regulations, 2) enables the discovery of sets of coregulators of target genes, and 3) results in a more efficient construction of gene regulatory networks. The model is compared to the existing literature using the known gene regulatory interactions of Drosophila Melanogaster.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it