Gene network reconstruction from transcriptional dynamics under kinetic model uncertainty: a case for the second derivative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Measurements of gene expression over time enable the reconstruction of transcriptional networks. However, Bayesian networks and many other current reconstruction methods rely on assumptions that conflict with the differential equations that describe transcriptional kinetics. Practical approximations of kinetic models would enable inferring causal relationships between genes from expression data of microarray, tag-based and conventional platforms, but conclusions are sensitive to the assumptions made. RESULTS: The representation of a sufficiently large portion of genome enables computation of an upper bound on how much confidence one may place in influences between genes on the basis of expression data. Information about which genes encode transcription factors is not necessary but may be incorporated if available. The methodology is generalized to cover cases in which expression measurements are missing for many of the genes that might control the transcription of the genes of interest. The assumption that the gene expression level is roughly proportional to the rate of translation led to better empirical performance than did either the assumption that the gene expression level is roughly proportional to the protein level or the Bayesian model average of both assumptions. AVAILABILITY: http://www.oisb.ca points to R code implementing the methods (R Development Core Team 2004). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: http://www.davidbickel.com.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".