Statistical and Graphical Methods for Quality Control Determination of High-Throughput Screening Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput screening (HTS) is used in modern drug discovery to screen hundreds of thousands to millions of compounds on selected protein targets. It is an industrial-scale process relying on sophisticated automation and state-of-the-art detection technologies. Quality control (QC) is an integral part of the process and is used to ensure good quality data and mini mize assay variability while maintaining assay sensitivity. The authors describe new QC methods and show numerous real examples from their biologist-friendly Stat Server HTS application, a custom-developed software tool built from the commercially available S-PLUS and Stat Server statistical analysis and server software. This system remotely processes HTS data using powerful and sophisticated statistical methodology but insulates users from the technical details by outputting results in a variety of readily interpretable graphs and tables. It allows users to visualize HTS data and examine assay performance during the HTS campaign to quickly react to or avoid quality problems.
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 | 0.090 | 0.289 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".