MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135378750 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msr205

Phylogenetic Analysis Based on Spectral Methods

2011· article· en· W2135378750 on OpenAlexafffund
Melanie Abeysundera, Chris Field, Hong Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeCovarianceBiologySimilarity (geometry)CladeTree (set theory)Categorical variablePattern recognition (psychology)Computational biologyStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGeneGeneticsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole-genome or multiple gene phylogenetic analysis is of interest since single gene analysis often results in poorly resolved trees. Here, the use of spectral techniques for analyzing multigene data sets is explored. The protein sequences are treated as categorical time series, and a measure of similarity between a pair of sequences, the spectral covariance, is based on the common periodicity between these two sequences. Unlike the other methods, the spectral covariance method focuses on the relationship between the sites of genetic sequences. By properly scaling the dissimilarity measures derived from different genes between a pair of species, we can use the mean of these scaled dissimilarity measures as a summary statistic to measure the taxonomic distances across multiple genes. The methods are applied to three different data sets, one noncontroversial and two with some dispute over the correct placement of the taxa in the tree. Trees are constructed using two distance-based methods, BIONJ and FITCH. A variation of block bootstrap sampling method is used for inference. The methods are able to recover all major clades in the corresponding reference trees with moderate to high bootstrap support. Through simulations, we show that the covariance-based methods effectively capture phylogenetic signal even when structural information is not fully retained. Comparisons of simulation results with the bootstrap permutation results indicate that the covariance-based methods are fairly robust under perturbations in sequence similarity but more sensitive to perturbations in structural similarity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207