MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909794724 · doi:10.3934/mbe.2019026

Identifying candidate diagnostic markers for tuberculosis: A critical role of co-expression and pathway analysis

2019· article· en· W2909794724 on OpenAlexaff
Xu Zhang, Dongdong Chen, Wenmin Yang, JianhongWu

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Biosciences & Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneMycobacterium tuberculosisTuberculosisComputational biologyGene expressionGeneticsGene expression profilingDNA microarrayMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a systematic bioinformatics analysis to explore an important set of gene expression data with 39 samples infected at different time stages withW-Beijing families of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains. We took a contrast on the samples at different infection time stages to characterize gene expression features of the THP1 cells to identify sensitive and specific molecular markers for diagnosis. We first confirmed, through the multidimensional scaling unsupervised clustering, that samples were clustered well according to different infection times. Building on this classification result and using the linear modelling and empirical Bayes moderation, we found 287 hits as most significant genes associated with tuberculosis. We generated a gene co-expression network map based on the mutual regulation between the differentially expressed genes. We found that 27 genes are regulatory genes associated with tuberculosis. We constructed 4 gene pathway figures to explain the pathogenicity process that involves 24 key genes. This study implicates that contrast on the gene expression of the classifications in different infection stages provides critical information for the detection of tuberculosis, and our method can be utilized to narrow down the shortlist of disease relevant genes and explore tuberculosis pathogenesis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Biosciences & EngineeringSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207