A robust neural networks approach for spatial and intensity-dependent normalization of cDNA microarray data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Microarray experiments are affected by numerous sources of non-biological variation that contribute systematic bias to the resulting data. In a dual-label (two-color) cDNA or long-oligonucleotide microarray, these systematic biases are often manifested as an imbalance of measured fluorescent intensities corresponding to Sample A versus those corresponding to Sample B. Systematic biases also affect between-slide comparisons. Making effective corrections for these systematic biases is a requisite for detecting the underlying biological variation between samples. Effective data normalization is therefore an essential step in the confident identification of biologically relevant differences in gene expression profiles. Several normalization methods for the correction of systemic bias have been described. While many of these methods have addressed intensity-dependent bias, few have addressed both intensity-dependent and spatiality-dependent bias. RESULTS: We present a neural network-based normalization method for correcting the intensity- and spatiality-dependent bias in cDNA microarray datasets. In this normalization method, the dependence of the log-intensity ratio (M) on the average log-intensity (A) as well as on the spatial coordinates (X,Y) of spots is approximated with a feed-forward neural network function. Resistance to outliers is provided by assigning weights to each spot based on how distant their M values is from the median over the spots whose A values are similar, as well as by using pseudospatial coordinates instead of spot row and column indices. A comparison of the robust neural network method with other published methods demonstrates its potential in reducing both intensity-dependent bias and spatial-dependent bias, which translates to more reliable identification of truly regulated genes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".