MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CNGPLD: case–control copy-number analysis using Gaussian process latent difference

2022· article· en· W4213201540 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David Shih, Ruoxing Li, Peter Müller, W. Jim Zheng, Kim‐Anh Do, Shiaw‐Yih Lin, Scott L. Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Prevention and Research Institute of TexasU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsFalse discovery rateCopy-number variationGenomeComputational biologyCovarianceSelection (genetic algorithm)BiologySomatic cellGeneticsComputer scienceGeneMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Cross-sectional analyses of primary cancer genomes have identified regions of recurrent somatic copy-number alteration, many of which result from positive selection during cancer formation and contain driver genes. However, no effective approach exists for identifying genomic loci under significantly different degrees of selection in cancers of different subtypes, anatomic sites or disease stages. RESULTS: CNGPLD is a new tool for performing case-control somatic copy-number analysis that facilitates the discovery of differentially amplified or deleted copy-number aberrations in a case group of cancer compared with a control group of cancer. This tool uses a Gaussian process statistical framework in order to account for the covariance structure of copy-number data along genomic coordinates and to control the false discovery rate at the region level. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: CNGPLD is freely available at https://bitbucket.org/djhshih/cngpld as an R package. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics 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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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 venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207