NLoed: A Python package for nonlinear optimal experimental design in systems biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation Modelling in systems and synthetic biology relies on accurate parameter estimates and predictions. Accurate model calibration relies, in turn, on data, and on how well-suited the available data is to a particular modelling task. Optimal experimental design (OED) techniques can be used to identify experiments and data collection procedures that will most efficiently contribute to a given modelling objective. However, implementation of OED is limited by currently available software tools that are not well-suited for the diversity of nonlinear models and non-normal data commonly encountered in biological research. Moreover, existing OED tools do not make use of the state-of-the-art numerical tools, resulting in inefficient computation. Results Here we present the NLoed software package. NLoed is an open-source Python library providing convenient access to OED methods, with particular emphasis on experimental design for systems biology research. NLoed supports a wide variety of nonlinear, multi-input/output, and dynamic models, and facilitates modelling and design of experiments over a wide variety of data types. To support OED investigations, the NLoed package implements maximum likelihood fitting and diagnostic tools, providing a comprehensive modelling workflow. NLoed offers an accessible, modular, and flexible OED tool-set suited to the wide variety of experimental scenarios encountered in systems biology research. We demonstrate NLOED’s capabilities by applying it to experimental design for characterization of a bacterial optogenetic system. Availability NLoed is available via pip from the PyPi repository; https://pypi.org/project/nloed/ . Source code, documentation and examples can be found on Github at https://github.com/ingallslab/NLoed . Contact bingalls@uwaterloo.ca Supplementary information Supplementary materials are available online.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.020 |
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".