A Closer Look at “Social” Boundary Genes Reveals Knowledge to Gene Expression Profiles
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
As social network analysis is gaining popularity in modeling real world problems, the task of applying the social network model concepts and notions to biological data is still one of the most attractive research problems to be addressed. According, our work described in this paper focuses on a particular set of genes that reside on the community boundaries in gene co-expression networks. Stemmed from community mining problem in social networks, peripheries of communities (i.e., boundaries) can be used to aid certain biological analysis. The proposed method consists of three parts: 1) Finding communities of gene co-expression networks through clustering. 2) Analyzing stability of community structures by Monte Carlo method. 3) Designing of dynamic adoption of boundaries using geometric convexity. We validated our findings using breast cancer gene expression data from various studies. Our approach contributes to the new branch of applying social network mechanisms in biological data analysis, leading to new data mining strategies implied by witnessing social behaviors in gene expression analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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