MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885764193 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2018.00294

Multi-omic Directed Networks Describe Features of Gene Regulation in Aged Brains and Expand the Set of Genes Driving Cognitive Decline

2018· article· en· W2885764193 on OpenAlexaff
Shinya Tasaki, Chris Gaiteri, Sara Mostafavi, Lei Yu, Yanling Wang, Philip L. De Jager, David A. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsCognitionSet (abstract data type)GeneGene regulatory networkComputational biologyBiologyComputer scienceNeuroscienceGeneticsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple aspects of molecular regulation, including genetics, epigenetics, and mRNA collectively influence the development of age-related neurologic diseases. Therefore, with the ultimate goal of understanding molecular systems associated with cognitive decline, we infer directed interactions among regulatory elements in the local regulatory vicinity of individual genes based on brain multi-omics data from 413 individuals. These local regulatory networks (LRNs) capture the influences of genetics and epigenetics on gene expression in older adults. LRNs were confirmed through correspondence to known transcription biophysics. To relate LRNs to age-related neurologic diseases, we then incorporate common neuropathologies and measures of cognitive decline into this framework. This step identifies a specific set of largely neuronal genes, such as STAU1 and SEMA3F, predicted to control cognitive decline in older adults. These predictions are validated in separate cohorts by comparison to genetic associations for general cognition. LRNs are shared through www.molecular.network on the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center Resource Sharing Hub (www.radc.rush.edu).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207