MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016049042 · doi:10.1038/s41431-019-0407-4

Abstracts from the 51st European Society of Human Genetics Conference: Oral Presentations

2019· article· en· W3016049042 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pablo Santamarina‐Ojeda

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Human Genetics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteMedical Research CouncilLily FoundationBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftYale UniversityINFRAFRONTIERE-RareUniversity of PennsylvaniaNational Human Genome Research InstituteWellcome TrustNewlife the Charity for Disabled ChildrenJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsCompartmentalization (fire protection)ProteomeComputational biologyMechanism (biology)Human geneticsGeneticsBiologyEvolutionary biologyBiochemistryGenePhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed characterization of cellular effects of genetic variants is essential for understanding biological processes that underlie genetic associations to disease, to improve the interpretation of the personal genome, and to characterize the genetic architecture of molecular variation.This has inspired large consortium projects to create and integrate population-scale genome data with transcriptome dataas well as other molecular phenotype datain human populations.The catalogs of genetic effects on the transcriptome across multiple human tissues and conditions now allows downstream discovery in diverse questions in genetics, including joint effects of regulatory and coding variants underlying modified penetrance of disease-causing variants, and novel methods to understand variation in gene dosage in human populations and patients.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Human GeneticsSame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207