Automated inference procedure for the determination of cell growth parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth rate and carrying capacity of a cell population are key to the characterization of the population's viability and to the quantification of its responses to perturbations such as drug treatments. Accurate estimation of these parameters necessitates careful analysis. Here, we present a rigorous mathematical approach for the robust analysis of cell count data, in which all the experimental stages of the cell counting process are investigated in detail with the machinery of Bayesian probability theory. We advance a flexible theoretical framework that permits accurate estimates of the growth parameters of cell populations and of the logical correlations between them. Moreover, our approach naturally produces an objective metric of avoidable experimental error, which may be tracked over time in a laboratory to detect instrumentation failures or lapses in protocol. We apply our method to the analysis of cell count data in the context of a logistic growth model by means of a user-friendly computer program that automates this analysis, and present some samples of its output. Finally, we note that a traditional least squares fit can provide misleading estimates of parameter values, because it ignores available information with regard to the way in which the data have actually been collected.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".