MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116354484 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaa377

Comprehensive pathway enrichment analysis workflows: COVID-19 case study

2020· article· en· W3116354484 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppe Agapito, Chiara Pastrello, Igor Jurišica

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computer sciencePandemicSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Data scienceCoronavirus2019-20 coronavirus outbreakOutbreakComputational biologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)BiologyMedicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak due to the novel coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been classified as a pandemic disease by the World Health Organization on the 12th March 2020. This world-wide crisis created an urgent need to identify effective countermeasures against SARS-CoV-2. In silico methods, artificial intelligence and bioinformatics analysis pipelines provide effective and useful infrastructure for comprehensive interrogation and interpretation of available data, helping to find biomarkers, explainable models and eventually cures. One class of such tools, pathway enrichment analysis (PEA) methods, helps researchers to find possible key targets present in biological pathways of host cells that are targeted by SARS-CoV-2. Since many software tools are available, it is not easy for non-computational users to choose the best one for their needs. In this paper, we highlight how to choose the most suitable PEA method based on the type of COVID-19 data to analyze. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of PEA techniques and the tools that implement them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBriefings in BioinformaticsSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207