Synthesizing Systems Biology Knowledge from Omics Using Genome‐Scale Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Omic technologies have enabled the complete readout of the molecular state of a cell at different biological scales. In principle, the combination of multiple omic data types can provide an integrated view of the entire biological system. This integration requires appropriate models in a systems biology approach. Here, genome-scale models (GEMs) are focused upon as one computational systems biology approach for interpreting and integrating multi-omic data. GEMs convert the reactions (related to metabolism, transcription, and translation) that occur in an organism to a mathematical formulation that can be modeled using optimization principles. A variety of genome-scale modeling methods used to interpret multiple omic data types, including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and meta-omics are reviewed. The ability to interpret omics in the context of biological systems has yielded important findings for human health, environmental biotechnology, bioenergy, and metabolic engineering. The authors find that concurrent with advancements in omic technologies, genome-scale modeling methods are also expanding to enable better interpretation of omic data. Therefore, continued synthesis of valuable knowledge, through the integration of omic data with GEMs, are expected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".