Impact framework: A python package for writing data analysis workflows to interpret microbial physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microorganisms can be genetically engineered to solve a range of challenges in diverse including health, environmental protection and sustainability. The natural complexity of biological systems makes this an iterative cycle, perturbing metabolism and making stepwise progress toward a desired phenotype through four major stages: design, build, test, and data interpretation. This cycle has been accelerated by advances in molecular biology (e.g. robust DNA synthesis and assembly techniques), liquid handling automation and scale-down characterization platforms, generating large heterogeneous data sets. Here, we present an extensible Python package for scientists and engineers working with large biological data sets to interpret, model, and visualize data: the IMPACT (Integrated Microbial Physiology: Analysis, Characterization and Translation) framework. Impact aims to ease the development of Python-based data analysis workflows for a range of stakeholders in the bioengineering process, offering open-source tools for data analysis, physiology characterization and translation to visualization. Using this framework, biologists and engineers can opt for reproducible and extensible programmatic data analysis workflows, mediating a bottleneck limiting the throughput of microbial engineering. The Impact framework is available at https://github.com/lmse/impact.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.022 |
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".