MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148251716 · doi:10.1100/2011/520498

Nonlinear Model-Based Method for Clustering Periodically Expressed Genes

2011· article· en· W2148251716 on OpenAlexafffund
Li‐Ping Tian, Lizhi Liu, Qian-Wei Zhang, Fang‐Xiang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceBootstrapping (finance)Data miningNonlinear systemCorrelation clusteringBiological dataPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustering periodically expressed genes from their time-course expression data could help understand the molecular mechanism of those biological processes. In this paper, we propose a nonlinear model-based clustering method for periodically expressed gene profiles. As periodically expressed genes are associated with periodic biological processes, the proposed method naturally assumes that a periodically expressed gene dataset is generated by a number of periodical processes. Each periodical process is modelled by a linear combination of trigonometric sine and cosine functions in time plus a Gaussian noise term. A two stage method is proposed to estimate the model parameter, and a relocation-iteration algorithm is employed to assign each gene to an appropriate cluster. A bootstrapping method and an average adjusted Rand index (AARI) are employed to measure the quality of clustering. One synthetic dataset and two biological datasets were employed to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. The results show that our method allows the better quality clustering than other clustering methods (e.g., k-means) for periodically expressed gene data, and thus it is an effective cluster analysis method for periodically expressed gene data.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207