MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920525488 · doi:10.1038/s42003-019-0349-y

Author Correction: Identification of genes required for eye development by high-throughput screening of mouse knockouts

2019· erratum· en· W2920525488 on OpenAlexaff
Bret A. Moore, Brian C. Leonard, Lionel Sebbag, Sydney Edwards, Ann Cooper, Denise M. Imai, Ewan Straiton, Luís Santos, Christopher Reilly, Stephen M. Griffey, Lynette Bower, David Clary, Jeremy Mason, Michel J. Roux, Hamid Méziane, Yann Hérault, Anna Swan, Ruairidh King, Piia Keskivali-Bond, Lois Kelsey, Igor Vukobradovic, Dawei Qu, Ruolin Guo, Elisa Tran, Lily Morikawa, Milan Ganguly, Napoleon Law, Xueyuan Shang, Patricia Feugas, Yanchun Wang, Yingchun Zhu, Kyle Duffin, Ayexa Ramirez, Patricia Penton, Valerie Laurin, Shannon Clarke, Qing Lan, Gillian Sleep, Amie Creighton, Elsa Jacob, Ozge Danisment, Joanna Joeng, Marina Gertsenstein, Mônica Corso Pereira, Sue MacMaster, Sandra Tondat, Tracy Carroll, Jorge Cabezas, Amit Patel, Jane Hunter, Gregory B. Clark, Mohammed Bubshait, David Miller, Khondoker Sohel, Alexandr Bezginov, Matthew McKay, Kevin J. Peterson, Leslie O. Goodwin, Rachel Urban, Susan Kales, Rob Hallett, Dong Nguyen-Bresinsky, Timothy Leach, Audrie Seluke, Sara Perkins, Amanda Slater, Rick Bedigian, Leah Rae Donahue, Robert A. Taft, James M. Denegre, Zachery Seavey, Amelia Willett, Lindsay Bates, Leslie Haynes, Julie Creed, Catherine Witmeyer, Willson Roper, James Clark, Pamela Stanley, Samantha Burrill, Jennifer Ryan, Yuichi Obata, Masaru Tamura, Hideki Kaneda, Tamio Furuse, Kimio Kobayashi, Ikuo Miura, Ikuko Yamada, Hiroshi Masuya, Nobuhiko Tanaka, Shinya Ayabe, Atsushi Yoshiki, Valerie E. Vancollie, Francesco Chiani, Chiara Di Pietro, Gianfranco Di Segni, Olga Ermakova, Filomena Ferrara, Paolo Fruscoloni, Alessia Gambadoro, Serena Gastaldi, Elisabetta Golini, Gina La Sala, Silvia Mandillo, Daniela Marazziti, Marzia Massimi, Rafaele Matteoni, Tiziana Orsini, Miriam Pasquini, Marcello Raspa, Aline Rauch, Gianfranco Rossi, Nicoletta Rossi, Sabrina Putti, Ferdinando Scavizzi, Giuseppe D. Tocchini-Valentini, Colin McKerlie, Ann M. Flenniken, Lauryl M. J. Nutter, Zorana Berberovic, Celeste Owen, Susan Newbigging, Hibret A. Adissu, Mohammed Eskandarian, Chih‐Wei Hsu, Sowmya Kalaga, Uchechukwu Udensi, Chinwe Asomugha, Ritu Bohat, Juan Gallegos, John R. Seavitt, Jason D. Heaney, Arthur L. Beaudet, Mary E. Dickinson, Monica J. Justice, Vivek M. Philip, Vivek Kumar, Karen L. Svenson, Robert E. Braun, Sara Wells, Heather Cater, Michelle Stewart, Sharon Clementson-Mobbs, Russell Joynson, Xiang Gao, Tomohiro Suzuki, Shigeharu Wakana, Damian Smedley, Je Kyung Seong, Glauco P. Tocchini‐Valentini, Mark D. Moore, Colin Fletcher, Natasha A. Karp, Ramiro Ramírez‐Solis, Jacqueline K. White, Martin Hrabě de Angelis, Wolfgang Wurst, Sara M. Thomasy, Paul Flicek, Helen Parkinson, Steve D. M. Brown, Terrence F. Meehan, Patsy M. Nishina, Stephen A. Murray, Mark P. Krebs, Ann‐Marie Mallon, K. C. Kent Lloyd, Christopher J. Murphy, Ala Moshiri

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2019
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenToronto Centre for Phenogenomics
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of HealthAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Gene knockoutComputer scienceThroughputComputational biologyLibrary scienceGeneticsBiologyGeneTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the original published version of the article, Valerie Vancollie was mistakenly omitted from the list of members of the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium. In addition, recognition of funding from Wellcome Trust grant WT098051 was mistakenly omitted from the Acknowledgements.The errors have been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the paper.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207