Integration of omics sciences to advance biology and medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past two decades, our ability to study cellular and molecular systems has been transformed through the development of omics sciences. While unlimited potential lies within massive omics datasets, the success of omics sciences to further our understanding of human disease and/or translating these findings to clinical utility remains elusive due to a number of factors. A significant limiting factor is the integration of different omics datasets (i.e., integromics) for extraction of biological and clinical insights. To this end, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) organized a joint workshop in June 2012 with the focus on integration issues related to multi-omics technologies that needed to be resolved in order to realize the full utility of integrating omics datasets by providing a glimpse into the disease as an integrated “system”. The overarching goals were to (1) identify challenges and roadblocks in omics integration, and (2) facilitate the full maturation of ‘integromics’ in biology and medicine. Participants reached a consensus on the most significant barriers for integrating omics sciences and provided recommendations on viable approaches to overcome each of these barriers within the areas of technology, bioinformatics and clinical medicine.
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 | 0.066 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".