MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567286744 · doi:10.1002/bimj.201500254

Multiple confidence intervals for selected parameters adjusted for the false coverage rate in monotone dose–response microarray experiments

2016· article· en· W2567286744 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianan Peng, Wei Liu, Frank Bretz, Ziv Shkedy

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonotone polygonConfidence intervalFalse discovery rateMathematicsMicroarrayStatisticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Multiple comparisons problemMicroarray analysis techniquesGeneBiologyComputer scienceGene expressionGeneticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benjamini and Yekutieli () introduced the concept of the false coverage-statement rate (FCR) to account for selection when the confidence intervals (CIs) are constructed only for the selected parameters. Dose-response analysis in dose-response microarray experiments is conducted only for genes having monotone dose-response relationship, which is a selection problem. In this paper, we consider multiple CIs for the mean gene expression difference between the highest dose and control in monotone dose-response microarray experiments for selected parameters adjusted for the FCR. A simulation study is conducted to study the performance of the method proposed. The method is applied to a real dose-response microarray experiment with 16, 998 genes for illustration.

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)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.252
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.252
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometrical JournalSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207