MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2389935477 · doi:10.1038/ncomms13766

Inferring time derivatives including cell growth rates using Gaussian processes

2016· article· en· W2389935477 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter S. Swain, Keiran Stevenson, Allen Leary, Luis F. Montaño-Gutierrez, Ivan Clark, Jackie Vogel, Teuta Piližota

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsVariable (mathematics)GaussianPopulationAlgorithmParametric statisticsRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceInterpolation (computer graphics)Time seriesNonparametric statisticsInferenceSeries (stratigraphy)AccelerationCovariateGaussian processApplied mathematicsStatisticsMathematicsBiologyArtificial intelligenceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Often the time derivative of a measured variable is of as much interest as the variable itself. For a growing population of biological cells, for example, the population's growth rate is typically more important than its size. Here we introduce a non-parametric method to infer first and second time derivatives as a function of time from time-series data. Our approach is based on Gaussian processes and applies to a wide range of data. In tests, the method is at least as accurate as others, but has several advantages: it estimates errors both in the inference and in any summary statistics, such as lag times, and allows interpolation with the corresponding error estimation. As illustrations, we infer growth rates of microbial cells, the rate of assembly of an amyloid fibril and both the speed and acceleration of two separating spindle pole bodies. Our algorithm should thus be broadly applicable.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations136
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207