← Back to cohort
Response to correspondence on “Reproducibility of CRISPR-Cas9 methods for generation of conditional mouse alleles: a multi-center evaluation”
Channabasavaiah B. Gurumurthy, Aidan R. O’Brien, Rolen M. Quadros, John H. Adams, Pilar Alcaide, Shinya Ayabe, Johnathan Ballard, Surinder K. Batra, Marie‐Claude Beauchamp, Kathleen A. Becker, Guillaume Bernas, David Brough, Francisco J. Carrillo‐Salinas, Wesley Chan, Hanying Chen, Ruby Dawson, Victoria DeMambro, Jinke D’Hont, Katharine M. Dibb, James D. Eudy, Lin Gan, Jing Gao, Amy Gonzales, Anyonya R. Guntur, Huiping Guo, Donald W. Harms, Anne Harrington, Kathryn E. Hentges, Neil Humphreys, Shiho Imai, Hideshi Ishii, Mizuho Iwama, Eric Jonasch, Michelle Karolak, Bernard Keavney, Nay-Chi Khin, Masamitsu Konno, Yuko Kotani, Yayoi Kunihiro, Imayavaramban Lakshmanan, Catherine Larochelle, Catherine B. Lawrence, Lin Li, Volkhard Lindner, Xian-De Liu, Gloria López‐Castejón, Andrew Loudon, Jenna Lowe, Loydie Jerome-Majeweska, Taiji Matsusaka, Hiromi Miura, Yoshiki Miyasaka, Benjamin Morpurgo, Katherine J. Motyl, Yo-ichi Nabeshima, Koji Nakade, Toshiaki Nakashiba, Ken‐ichi Nakashima, Yuichi Obata, Sanae Ogiwara, Mariette Ouellet, Leif Oxburgh, Sandra Piltz, Ilka Pinz, Moorthy P. Ponnusamy, David Ray, Ronald Redder, Clifford J. Rosen, Nikki Ross, Mark Ruhe, Larisa Ryzhova, Ane Salvador, Sabrina Alam, Radislav Sedláček, Karan Sharma, Chad Smith, Katrien Staes, Lora Starrs, Fumihiro Sugiyama, Satoru Takahashi, Tomohiro Tanaka, Andrew W. Trafford, Yoshihiro Uno, Leen Vanhoutte, Frederique Vanrockeghem, Brandon Willis, Christian S. Wright, Yuko Yamauchi, Xin Yi, Kazuto Yoshimi, Xuesong Zhang, Yingxin Zhang, Masato Ohtsuka, Satyabrata Das, Daniel J. Garry, Tino Hochepied, Paul Q. Thomas, Jan Parker‐Thornburg, Antony Adamson, Atsushi Yoshiki, Jean-Francois Schmouth, Andrei Golovko, William R. Thompson, K. C. Kent Lloyd, Joshua A. Wood, Mitra Cowan, Tomoji Mashimo, Seiya Mizuno, Hao Zhu, Petr Kašpárek, Lucy Liaw, Joseph M. Miano, Gaétan Burgio
Bibliographic record
VenueGenome biology · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersSchool of Medicine, Tokai UniversitySchool of Medicine, Indiana UniversityUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterWellcome TrustManchester Collaborative Centre for Inflammation ResearchUniversiteit GentUniversity of ManchesterBritish Heart FoundationUniversity of RochesterDirectorate for Biological SciencesMedical Research CouncilChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstituteMedical Center, University of RochesterUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
KeywordsBiologyCRISPRHuman geneticsGeneticsAlleleComputational biologyCas9ReproducibilityGeneStatistics
Abstract
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.
No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.
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.
metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score1.000
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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.
Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno