Detecting and overcoming systematic bias in high-throughput screening technologies: a comprehensive review of practical issues and methodological solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant efforts have been made recently to improve data throughput and data quality in screening technologies related to drug design. The modern pharmaceutical industry relies heavily on high-throughput screening (HTS) and high-content screening (HCS) technologies, which include small molecule, complementary DNA (cDNA) and RNA interference (RNAi) types of screening. Data generated by these screening technologies are subject to several environmental and procedural systematic biases, which introduce errors into the hit identification process. We first review systematic biases typical of HTS and HCS screens. We highlight that study design issues and the way in which data are generated are crucial for providing unbiased screening results. Considering various data sets, including the publicly available ChemBank data, we assess the rates of systematic bias in experimental HTS by using plate-specific and assay-specific error detection tests. We describe main data normalization and correction techniques and introduce a general data preprocessing protocol. This protocol can be recommended for academic and industrial researchers involved in the analysis of current or next-generation HTS 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 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 | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".