MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140466892 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbt007

The Rat Genome Database 2013--data, tools and users

2013· article· en· W2140466892 on OpenAlexaff
Stanley J. F. Laulederkind, G. Thomas Hayman, Shuu‐Jiun Wang, Jennifer R. Smith, T. F. Lowry, R. Nigam, V. Petri, Jeff De Pons, Melinda R. Dwinell, Mary Shimoyama, Diane H. Munzenmaier, Elizabeth A. Worthey, Howard J. Jacob

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGenomicsGenomeFocus (optics)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebTranslational researchComputational biologyBiologyData scienceGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Rat Genome Database (RGD) was started >10 years ago to provide a core genomic resource for rat researchers. Currently, RGD combines genetic, genomic, pathway, phenotype and strain information with a focus on disease. RGD users are provided with access to structured and curated data from the molecular level through the organismal level. Those users access RGD from all over the world. End users are not only rat researchers but also researchers working with mouse and human data. Translational research is supported by RGD's comparative genetics/genomics data in disease portals, in GBrowse, in VCMap and on gene report pages. The impact of RGD also goes beyond the traditional biomedical researcher, as the influence of RGD reaches bioinformaticians, tool developers and curators. Import of RGD data into other publicly available databases expands the influence of RGD to a larger set of end users than those who avail themselves of the RGD website. The value of RGD continues to grow as more types of data and more tools are added, while reaching more types of end users.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.050

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations68
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBriefings in BioinformaticsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207