Identification and Correction of Additive and Multiplicative Spatial Biases in Experimental High-Throughput Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data generated by high-throughput screening (HTS) technologies are prone to spatial bias. Traditionally, bias correction methods used in HTS assume either a simple additive or, more recently, a simple multiplicative spatial bias model. These models do not, however, always provide an accurate correction of measurements in wells located at the intersection of rows and columns affected by spatial bias. The measurements in these wells depend on the nature of interaction between the involved biases. Here, we propose two novel additive and two novel multiplicative spatial bias models accounting for different types of bias interactions. We describe a statistical procedure that allows for detecting and removing different types of additive and multiplicative spatial biases from multiwell plates. We show how this procedure can be applied by analyzing data generated by the four HTS technologies (homogeneous, microorganism, cell-based, and gene expression HTS), the three high-content screening (HCS) technologies (area, intensity, and cell-count HCS), and the only small-molecule microarray technology available in the ChemBank small-molecule screening database. The proposed methods are included in the AssayCorrector program, implemented in R, and available on CRAN.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".