Why we should use Topological Data Analysis in Ageing: towards defining\n the "Topological shape of ageing"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living systems are subject to the arrow of time; from birth, they undergo complex transformations (self-organization) in a constant battle for survival, but inevitably ageing and disease trap them to death. Can ageing be understood and eventually reversed? What tools can be employed to further our understanding of ageing? The present article is an invitation for biologists and clinicians to consider key conceptual ideas and computational tools (known to mathematicians and physicists), which potentially may help dissect some of the underlying processes of ageing and disease. Specifically, we first discuss how to classify and analyze complex systems, as well as highlight critical theoretical difficulties that make complex systems hard to study. Subsequently, we introduce Topological Data Analysis - a novel Big Data tool - which may help in the study of complex systems since it extracts knowledge from data in a holistic approach via topological considerations. These conceptual ideas and tools are discussed in a rather informal way to pave future discussions and collaborations between mathematicians and biologists studying ageing.
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 | 0.025 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".