MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166393666 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm145

An efficient method for the detection and elimination of systematic error in high-throughput screening

2007· article· en· W2166393666 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation CentreUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThroughputComputer scienceError detection and correctionSystematic errorHigh-throughput screeningStatisticsAlgorithmMathematicsBiologyBioinformaticsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: High-throughput screening (HTS) is an early-stage process in drug discovery which allows thousands of chemical compounds to be tested in a single study. We report a method for correcting HTS data prior to the hit selection process (i.e. selection of active compounds). The proposed correction minimizes the impact of systematic errors which may affect the hit selection in HTS. The introduced method, called a well correction, proceeds by correcting the distribution of measurements within wells of a given HTS assay. We use simulated and experimental data to illustrate the advantages of the new method compared to other widely-used methods of data correction and hit selection in HTS. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.308 · 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