MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Systems Biology through Mouse Imaging Centers: Experience and New Directions

2010· review· en· W2171303604 on OpenAlexafffund
R. Mark Henkelman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Biomedical Engineering · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBiologyComputational biologyPerspective (graphical)GenomePhenotypeData scienceGeneticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The completed sequencing of genomes has forced upon us the challenge of understanding how the detailed information in the genome gives rise to the specific characteristics--phenotype--of the individual. This is crucial for understanding not only normal development but also, from a medical perspective, the genetic basis of disease. Much of the mammalian genome-to-phenotype relationship will be worked out in the mouse, for which powerful genetic-manipulation tools are available. Mouse imaging combined with powerful statistical methods has a unique and growing role to play in phenotyping genetically modified mice. This review outlines the challenges for image-based phenotyping, summarizes the current state of three-dimensional imaging technologies for the mouse, and highlights new opportunities in systems biology that are opened by imaging mice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Biomedical EngineeringSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207