MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210585421 · doi:10.1101/2022.01.24.477615

Similarity bias from consensus perturbational signatures from the L1000 Connectivity Map

2022· preprint· en· W4210585421 on OpenAlexaff
Ian C. P. Smith, Katy Scott, Benjamin Haibe‐Kains

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsVector InstitutePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersBroad Institute
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Signature (topology)Artificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Data miningMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Next Generation L1000 Connectivity Map (L1000) is a massive, high-throughput dataset measuring transcriptional changes - or signatures - in cancer cell lines due to chemical and genetic perturbation. Zhu et al recently presented Deep Learning-Based Efficacy Prediction System (DLEPS), a method that models averages of many signatures (CTPs or meta-signatures) of the same compound across conditions. However, our analysis shows that averaging increasing numbers of signatures from L1000 results in a substantial positive increase in signature similarities even among entirely unrelated perturbations, drastically shifting the baseline threshold for similarity. Consequently, DLEPS overstates how informative the model is about each compound, highlighting the need to account for this similarity bias in any L1000 Connectivity Map analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207