Robin: An Intuitive Wizard Application for R-Based Expression Microarray Quality Assessment and Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wide application of high-throughput transcriptomics using microarrays has generated a plethora of technical platforms, data repositories, and sophisticated statistical analysis methods, leaving the individual scientist with the problem of choosing the appropriate approach to address a biological question. Several software applications that provide a rich environment for microarray analysis and data storage are available (e.g. GeneSpring, EMMA2), but these are mostly commercial or require an advanced informatics infrastructure. There is a need for a noncommercial, easy-to-use graphical application that aids the lab researcher to find the proper method to analyze microarray data, without this requiring expert understanding of the complex underlying statistics, or programming skills. We have developed Robin, a Java-based graphical wizard application that harnesses the advanced statistical analysis functions of the R/BioConductor project. Robin implements streamlined workflows that guide the user through all steps of two-color, single-color, or Affymetrix microarray analysis. It provides functions for thorough quality assessment of the data and automatically generates warnings to notify the user of potential outliers, low-quality chips, or low statistical power. The results are generated in a standard format that allows ready use with both specialized analysis tools like MapMan and PageMan and generic spreadsheet applications. To further improve user friendliness, Robin includes both integrated help and comprehensive external documentation. To demonstrate the statistical power and ease of use of the workflows in Robin, we present a case study in which we apply Robin to analyze a two-color microarray experiment comparing gene expression in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) leaves, flowers, and roots.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.041 |
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".