Two effective methods for correcting experimental high-throughput screening data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Rapid advances in biomedical sciences and genetics have increased the pressure on drug development companies to promptly translate new knowledge into treatments for disease. Impelled by the demand and facilitated by technological progress, the number of compounds evaluated during the initial high-throughput screening (HTS) step of drug discovery process has steadily increased. As a highly automated large-scale process, HTS is prone to systematic error caused by various technological and environmental factors. A number of error correction methods have been designed to reduce the effect of systematic error in experimental HTS (Brideau et al., 2003; Carralot et al., 2012; Kevorkov and Makarenkov, 2005; Makarenkov et al., 2007; Malo et al., 2010). Despite their power to correct systematic error when it is present, the applicability of those methods in practice is limited by the fact that they can potentially introduce a bias when applied to unbiased data. We describe two new methods for eliminating systematic error from HTS data based on a prior knowledge of the error location. This information can be obtained using a specific version of the t-test or of the χ(2) goodness-of-fit test as discussed in Dragiev et al. (2011). We will show that both new methods constitute an important improvement over the standard practice of not correcting for systematic error at all as well as over the B-score correction procedure (Brideau et al., 2003) which is widely used in the modern HTS. We will also suggest a more general data preprocessing framework where the new methods can be applied in combination with the Well Correction procedure (Makarenkov et al., 2007). Such a framework will allow for removing systematic biases affecting all plates of a given screen as well as those relative to some of its individual plates.
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 | 0.013 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".