MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140864052 · doi:10.1677/jme.0.0330001

Microarray truths and consequences

2004· review· en· W2140864052 on OpenAlex
CH Woelk, Jacques Corbeil

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Endocrinology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCenter for AIDS Research, University of Washington
KeywordsData extractionComputer scienceMicroarray analysis techniquesMicroarrayExpression (computer science)Extraction (chemistry)Microarray databasesProcess (computing)Path (computing)RNA extractionData scienceComputational biologyData miningRNAGene expressionBiologyMEDLINEGeneChemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many, analysis of a microarray experiment starts with a spreadsheet of expression levels. While great attention is duly paid to RNA extraction, preparation and hybridization, relatively little care is devoted to extraction of expression levels from the fluorescent image. By delegating this step to a click of the mouse the exact extraction process is masked and researchers may be unwittingly compromising their data. In this review, we describe the most common mistakes committed on the path from the image to the spreadsheet and their impact on data quality. Remedies are further proposed for most of the popular microarray platforms in use today.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.298 · 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