A Hill-Climbing Approach for Automatic Gridding of cDNA Microarray Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image and statistical analysis are two important stages of cDNA microarrays. Of these, gridding is necessary to accurately identify the location of each spot while extracting spot intensities from the microarray images and automating this procedure permits high-throughput analysis. Due to the deficiencies of the equipment used to print the arrays, rotations, misalignments, high contamination with noise and artifacts, and the enormous amount of data generated, solving the gridding problem by means of an automatic system is not trivial. Existing techniques to solve the automatic grid segmentation problem cover only limited aspects of this challenging problem and require the user to specify the size of the spots, the number of rows and columns in the grid, and boundary conditions. In this paper, a hill-climbing automatic gridding and spot quantification technique is proposed which takes a microarray image (or a subgrid) as input and makes no assumptions about the size of the spots, rows, and columns in the grid. The proposed method is based on a hill-climbing approach that utilizes different objective functions. The method has been found to effectively detect the grids on microarray images drawn from databases from GEO and the Stanford genomic laboratories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".