MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415803807 · doi:10.1007/978-1-61737-992-5_17

MRI Phenotyping of Genetically Altered Mice

2010· article· en· W2415803807 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason P. Lerch, John G. Sled, R. Mark Henkelman

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Centre for PhenogenomicsHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhenotypeComputational biologyBiologyGenetic similarityGenetically modified organismSimilarity (geometry)Set (abstract data type)Genetically engineeredGeneticsComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The laboratory mouse, with its genetic similarity to humans and rich set of tools for manipulating its genome, has emerged as one of the key models for experimental investigation of the genotype/phenotype relationships in mammals. Recent innovations have made MRI an increasingly popular tool for examining the phenotype of genetically altered mice. Advances in field strengths, mouse handling, image analysis and statistics have contributed greatly in this regard. In this chapter, we illustrate the methods necessary to achieve high-throughput phenotyping of genetically altered mice using multiple-mouse MRI combined with advanced image analysis techniques and statistics.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 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

Citations149
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207