MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142280055 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt710

ChromoHub V2: cancer genomics

2013· article· en· W2142280055 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad A Shah, Emily Denton, Lihua Liu, Matthieu Schapira

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Canadian institutionsStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of Toronto
FundersMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoOntario Ministry of Economic Development and InnovationOntario Genomics InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario GenomicsGenome CanadaWellcome TrustEli Lilly CanadaGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsChromatinGenomicsEpigeneticsHistoneComputational biologyBiologyGenomeCancerChromatin remodelingGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Cancer genomics data produced by next-generation sequencing support the notion that epigenetic mechanisms play a central role in cancer. We have previously developed Chromohub, an open access online interface where users can map chemical, structural and biological data from public repositories on phylogenetic trees of protein families involved in chromatin mediated-signaling. Here, we describe a cancer genomics interface that was recently added to Chromohub; the frequency of mutation, amplification and change in expression of chromatin factors across large cohorts of cancer patients is regularly extracted from The Cancer Genome Atlas and the International Cancer Genome Consortium and can now be mapped on phylogenetic trees of epigenetic protein families. Explorators of chromatin signaling can now easily navigate the cancer genomics landscape of writers, readers and erasers of histone marks, chromatin remodeling complexes, histones and their chaperones. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: http://www.thesgc.org/chromohub/.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicProtein Degradation and InhibitorsFrench-language works237,207