Human Heterogeneity and Survival of the Species: How Did It Arise and Being Sustained?—The Conundrum Facing Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current humans, Homo sapiens, are genetically and epigenetically very heterogeneous, and subsequently also biologically and physiologically heterogeneous. Much of this heterogeneity likely arose during evolutionary processes, via various iterations of humanoid lineages, and interbreeding. While advantageous from a species perspective, the heterogeneity of humans poses serious challenges to researchers attempting to understand complex disease processes. While the use of inbred preclinical models makes the research effort more effective at some levels, the findings are often not translatable to the more heterogeneous human populations. This conundrum leads to considerable research activity with inbred preclinical models, but modest progress in understanding many complex human conditions and diseases. This article discusses several of the issues around human heterogeneity and the need to change some directions in preclinical model research. Using newer Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning approaches can begin to deduce important elements from the complexity of human heterogeneity.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".