Granulometric Analysis of Spots in DNA Microarray Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the topological properties of each spot in DNA microarray images may vary from one another, we employed granulometries to understand the shape-size content contributed due to a significant intensity value within a spot. Analysis was performed on the microarray image that consisted of 240 spots by using concepts from mathematical morphology. In order to find out indices for each spot and to further classify them, we adopted morphological multiscale openings, which provided microarrays at multiple scales. Successive opened microarrays were subtracted to identify the protrusions that were smaller than the size of structuring element. Spot-wise details, in terms of probability of these observed protrusions, were computed by placing a regularly spaced grid on microarray such that each spot was centered in each grid. Based on the probability of size distribution functions of these protrusions isolated at each level, we estimated the mean size and texture index for each spot. With these characteristics, we classified the spots in a microarray image into bright and dull categories through pattern spectrum and shape-size complexity measures. These segregated spots can be compared with those of hybridization levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".