Bibliographic record
Abstract
A microarray study aims at having a high probability of declaring genes to be differentially expressed if they are truly expressed, while keeping the probability of making false declarations of expression acceptably low. Thus, in formal terms, well-designed microarray studies will have high power while controlling type I error risk. Achieving this objective is the purpose of this paper. Here, we discuss conceptual issues and present computational methods for statistical power and sample size in microarray studies, taking account of the multiple testing that is generic to these studies. The discussion encompasses choices of experimental design and replication for a study. Practical examples are used to demonstrate the methods. The examples show forcefully that replication of a microarray experiment can yield large increases in statistical power. The paper refers to cDNA arrays in the discussion and illustrations but the proposed methodology is equally applicable to expression data from oligonucleotide arrays.
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 | 0.205 | 0.660 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".