MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160267778 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-00608-9

Cross-platform transcriptomic profiling of the response to recombinant human erythropoietin

2021· article· en· W3160267778 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guan Wang, Traci Kitaoka, Ali Crawford, Qian Mao, Andrew Hesketh, Fergus Guppy, Garrett I. Ash, Jason Liu, Mark Gerstein, Yannis Pitsiladis

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesOffice of Academic Affiliations, Department of Veterans AffairsIsrael Science FoundationWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)ErythropoietinRecombinant DNATranscriptomeComputational biologyGene expression profilingBioinformaticsBiologyComputer scienceGeneGene expressionGeneticsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RNA-seq has matured and become an important tool for studying RNA biology. Here we compared two RNA-seq (MGI DNBSEQ and Illumina NextSeq 500) and two microarray platforms (GeneChip Human Transcriptome Array 2.0 and Illumina Expression BeadChip) in healthy individuals administered recombinant human erythropoietin for transcriptome-wide quantification of differential gene expression. The results show that total RNA DNB-seq generated a multitude of target genes compared to other platforms. Pathway enrichment analyses revealed genes correlate to not only erythropoiesis and oxygen transport but also a wide range of other functions, such as tissue protection and immune regulation. This study provides a knowledge base of genes relevant to EPO biology through cross-platform comparisons and validation.

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 imitation

Not 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207