MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775615379 · doi:10.1139/bcb-2016-0194

Savitzky–Golay smoothing and differentiation for polymerase chain reaction quantification

2017· article· en· W2775615379 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Charles Gaudreault, Joanny Salvas, Joël Sirois

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsPfizer (Canada)Université de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de SherbrookePfizer
KeywordsSmoothingBinary Golay codeSigmoid functionStatisticsBiological systemMathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In quantitative PCR (qPCR), replicates can minimize the impact of intra-assay variation; however, inter-assay variations must be minimized to obtain a robust quantification method. The method proposed in this study uses Savitzky–Golay smoothing and differentiation (SGSD) to identify a derivative-maximum-based cycle of quantification. It does not rely on curve modeling, as is the case with many existing techniques. PCR fluorescence data sets challenged for inter-assay variations (different thermocycler units, different reagents batches, different operators, different standard curves, and different labs) were used for the evaluation. The algorithm was compared with a four-parameter logistic model (4PLM) method, the Cy0 method, and the threshold method. The SGSD method compared favourably with all methods in terms of inter-assay variation. SGSD was statistically different from the 4PLM (P = 0.03), Cy0 (P = 0.05), and threshold (P = 0.004) methods on relative error comparison basis. For intra-assay variations, SGSD outperformed the threshold method (P = 0.005) and equalled the 4PLM and Cy0 methods (P > 0.05) on relative error basis. Our results demonstrate that the SGSD method could potentially be an alternative to sigmoid modeling based methods (4PLM and Cy0) when PCR data are challenged for inter-assay variations.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207