Comprehensive pathway enrichment analysis workflows: COVID-19 case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".