MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171539929 · doi:10.1109/bibe.2005.22

Discovery of Gene Expression Patterns across Multiple Cancer Types

2006· article· en· W2171539929 on OpenAlexaff
Keith C. C. Chan, Parvin Mousavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceInferenceBreast cancerComputational biologyGene expressionMachine learningGeneArtificial intelligenceBiologyData miningCancerGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the underlying common gene expression signatures in related cancer types. Shared expression signatures are investigated in breast and ovarian cancers specifically through the definition of four progressively more difficult classification problems. SHEBA, a stochastic Bayesian inference approach, is introduced to identify highly predictive gene sets in the defined classification problems. The heuristics reduce the computation time required to identify the most informative groups of features in the gene space, while providing a good approximation of comparable exhaustive approaches. The breast and ovarian cancer class could be distinguished well from the other classes of cancers using SHEBA in three of the four classification problems, suggesting the existence of a commonality between their gene expressions. Extensive statistical validation and preliminary biological review of the most predictive gene sets demonstrate their robustness and specificity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207