← Back to cohort
Analysis of mammalian gene function through broad-based phenotypic screens across a consortium of mouse clinics
Martin Hrabě de Angelis, George Nicholson, Mohammed Selloum, Jacqueline K. White, Hugh W. Morgan, Ramiro Ramírez‐Solis, Tania Sorg, Sara Wells, Helmut Fuchs, Martin Fray, David J. Adams, Niels C. Adams, Thure Adler, Juan Antonio Aguilar‐Pimentel, Dalila Ali-Hadji, Grégory Amann, Philippe André, Sarah Atkins, Aurélie Auburtin, Abdel Ayadi, Julien Becker, Lore Becker, Elodie Bedu, Raffi Bekeredjian, Marie‐Christine Birling, Andrew Blake, Joanna Bottomley, Michael R. Bowl, Véronique Brault, Dirk H. Busch, James Bussell, Julia Calzada‐Wack, Heather Cater, Marie‐France Champy, Philippe Charles, Claire Chevalier, Francesco Chiani, Gemma Codner, Roy Combe, Roger Cox, Emilie Dalloneau, André Dierich, Armida Di Fenza, Brendan Doe, Arnaud Duchon, Oliver Eickelberg, Chris Esapa, Lahcen El Fertak, Tanja Feigel, Irina Emelyanova, Jeanne Estabel, Jack Favor, Ann M. Flenniken, Alessia Gambadoro, Lillian Garrett, Hilary Gates, Anna-Karin Gerdin, Simon Greenaway, Lisa Glasl, P Goetz, Isabelle Goncalves Da Cruz, Alexander Götz, Jochen Graw, Alain Guimond, Wolfgang Hans, Geoffrey G. Hicks, Sabine M. Hölter, Heinz Höfler, John M. Hancock, Robert Hoehndorf, Tertius Hough, Richard Houghton, Anja Hurt, Boris Ivandic, Hughes Jacobs, Sylvie Jacquot, Nora Jones, Natasha A. Karp, Hugo A. Katus, Sharon Kitchen, Tanja Klein‐Rodewald, Martin Klingenspor, Thomas Klopstock, Valérie Lalanne, Sophie Leblanc, Christoph Lengger, Elise Le Marchand, Tonia Ludwig, Aline Lux, Colin McKerlie, Holger Maier, Jean‐Louis Mandel, Susan Marschall, Manuel Mark, David Melvin, Hamid Méziane, Kateryna Micklich, Christophe Mittelhauser, Laurent Monassier, David Moulaert, Beatrix Naton, Frauke Neff, Patrick M. Nolan, Lauryl M. J. Nutter, Markus Ollert, Guillaume Pavlovic, Natalia S. Pellegata, E. Midford Peter, Benoit Petit‐Demoulière, Amanda J. Pickard, Christine Podrini, Paul Potter, Laurent Pouilly, Oliver Puk, David Richardson, Stéphane Rousseau, Leticia Quintanilla‐Martínez, Mohamed Mohideen Quwailid, Ildikó Rácz, Birgit Rathkolb, Fabrice Riet, Janet Rossant, Michel J. Roux, Jan Rozman, Edward J. Ryder, Jennifer Salisbury, Luís Santos, Karlheinz F. Schäble, Evelyn Schiller, Anja Schrewe, Holger Schulz, Ralf Steinkamp, Michelle Simon, Michelle Stewart, Claudia Stöger, Tobias Stöger, Minxuan Sun, David Sunter, Lydia Teboul, Isabelle Tilly, Glauco P. Tocchini‐Valentini, Monica Tost, Irina Treise, Laurent Vasseur, Émilie Velot, Daniela M. Vogt Weisenhorn, Christelle Wagner, Alison Walling, Marie Wattenhofer‐Donzé, Bruno Weber, Olivia Wendling, Henrik Westerberg, Monja Willershäuser, Eckhard Wolf, Anne Wolter, Joe Wood, Wolfgang Wurst, Ali Önder Yildirim, Ramona Zeh, Andreas Zimmer, Annemarie Zimprich, Chris Holmes, Karen P. Steel, Yann Hérault, Valérie Gailus‐Durner, Ann‐Marie Mallon, Steve D. M. Brown
Bibliographic record
VenueNature Genetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsToronto Centre for PhenogenomicsHospital for Sick ChildrenLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of ManitobaMount Sinai Hospital
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilAgence Nationale de la RechercheCancer Research UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsBiologyPhenotypeGeneticsGeneComputational biologyPleiotropyGene knockoutAlleleFunction (biology)
Abstract
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.
No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.
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.
metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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.
The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Citations159
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno