A data science approach to candidate gene selection of pain regarded as a process of learning and neural plasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing availability of "big data" enables novel research approaches to chronic pain while also requiring novel techniques for data mining and knowledge discovery. We used machine learning to combine the knowledge about n = 535 genes identified empirically as relevant to pain with the knowledge about the functions of thousands of genes. Starting from an accepted description of chronic pain as displaying systemic features described by the terms "learning" and "neuronal plasticity," a functional genomics analysis proposed that among the functions of the 535 "pain genes," the biological processes "learning or memory" (P = 8.6 × 10) and "nervous system development" (P = 2.4 × 10) are statistically significantly overrepresented as compared with the annotations to these processes expected by chance. After establishing that the hypothesized biological processes were among important functional genomics features of pain, a subset of n = 34 pain genes were found to be annotated with both Gene Ontology terms. Published empirical evidence supporting their involvement in chronic pain was identified for almost all these genes, including 1 gene identified in March 2016 as being involved in pain. By contrast, such evidence was virtually absent in a randomly selected set of 34 other human genes. Hence, the present computational functional genomics-based method can be used for candidate gene selection, providing an alternative to established methods.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".