MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127251093 · doi:10.1142/s0219720012500217

A FLEXIBLE NONPARAMETRIC APPROACH TO FIND CANDIDATE GENES ASSOCIATED WITH DISEASE IN MICROARRAY EXPERIMENTS

2012· article· en· W2127251093 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Hossain, Andrew R. Willan, Joseph Beyene

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCandidate geneGeneFunction (biology)Computational biologyNonparametric statisticsBiologyMicroarrayGeneticsMicroarray analysis techniquesDNA microarrayGene predictionGene expressionMathematicsStatisticsGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Very often biologists are interested to know the biological function of a particular gene. Its true biological function may depend on other genes. Finding other genes in the same biological pathway of that gene may enhance further understanding of its biological function. Therefore, we are interested in finding other candidate genes whose expression values are highly correlated with that of a "seed" gene. The "seed" gene, which is known and associated with a disease, is used as a reference to extract candidate genes from microarray experiments and enriched pathways. We propose a nonparametric procedure for selecting the candidate genes. The expression levels for these candidate genes are correlated with that of a "seed" gene in microarray experiments. The proposed test statistic compares two Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves (AUC) for gene pairs, taking implicit correlation between two AUCs into account. The performance of our method is compared to the other well-known methods through the use of simulation and real data 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational BiologySame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207