MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158270456 · doi:10.1101/gr.140665.112

Spark: A navigational paradigm for genomic data exploration

2012· article· en· W2158270456 on OpenAlexafffund
Cydney Nielsen, Hamid Younesy, Henriette O’Geen, Xiaoqin Xu, Andrew R. Jackson, Aleksandar Milosavljevic, Ting Wang, J Costello, Martin Hirst, Peggy Farnham, Steven J.M. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Human Genome Research InstituteMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsBiologySPARK (programming language)Computational biologyEpigenomicsVisualizationGenome browserGenomeData scienceGenomicsDECIPHERBioinformaticsGeneticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDNA methylationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biologists possess the detailed knowledge critical for extracting biological insight from genome-wide data resources, and yet they are increasingly faced with nontrivial computational analysis challenges posed by genome-scale methodologies. To lower this computational barrier, particularly in the early data exploration phases, we have developed an interactive pattern discovery and visualization approach, Spark, designed with epigenomic data in mind. Here we demonstrate Spark's ability to reveal both known and novel epigenetic signatures, including a previously unappreciated binding association between the YY1 transcription factor and the corepressor CTBP2 in human embryonic stem cells.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.329
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.126 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207