A primer on high-dimensional data analysis workflows for studying visual cortex development and plasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract New techniques for quantifying large numbers of proteins or genes are transforming the study of plasticity mechanisms in visual cortex (V1) into the era of big data. With those changes comes the challenge of applying new analytical methods designed for high-dimensional data. Studies of V1, however, can take advantage of the known functions that many proteins have in regulating experience-dependent plasticity to facilitate linking big data analyses with neurobiological functions. Here we discuss two workflows and provide example R code for analyzing high-dimensional changes in a group of proteins (or genes) using two data sets. The first data set includes 7 neural proteins, 9 visual conditions, and 3 regions in V1 from an animal model for amblyopia. The second data set includes 23 neural proteins and 31 ages (20d-80yrs) from human post-mortem samples of V1. Each data set presents different challenges and we describe using PCA, tSNE, and various clustering algorithms including sparse high-dimensional clustering. Also, we describe a new approach for identifying high-dimensional features and using them to construct a plasticity phenotype that identifies neurobiological differences among clusters. We include an R package “v1hdexplorer” that aggregates the various coding packages and custom visualization scripts written in R Studio.
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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.038 |
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".