Cerebral: Visualizing Multiple Experimental Conditions on a Graph with Biological Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systems biologists use interaction graphs to model the behavior of biological systems at the molecular level. In an iterative process, such biologists observe the reactions of living cells under various experimental conditions, view the results in the context of the interaction graph, and then propose changes to the graph model. These graphs ser ve as a form of dynamic knowledge representation of the biological system being studied and evolve as new insight is gained from the experimental data. While numerous graph layout and drawing packages are available, these tools did not fully meet the needs of our immunologist collaborators. In this paper, we describe the data information display needs of these immunologists and translate them into design decisions. These decisions led us to create Cerebral, a system that uses a biologically guided graph layout and incorporates experimental data directly into the graph display. Small multiple views of different experimental conditions and a data-driven parallel coordinates view enable correlations between experimental conditions to be analyzed at the same time that the data is viewed in the graph context. This combination of coordinated views allows the biologist to view the data from many different perspectives simultaneously. To illustrate the typical analysis tasks performed, we analyze two datasets using Cerebral. Based on feedback from our collaborators we conclude that Cerebral is a valuable tool for analyzing experimental data in the context of an interaction graph model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".