R-ODAF: Omics data analysis framework for regulatory application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widespread use of transcriptomics technologies in toxicology research, acceptance of the data by regulatory agencies to support the hazard assessment is still limited. Fundamental issues contributing to this are the lack of reproducibility in transcriptomics data analysis arising from variance in the methods used to generate data and differences in the data processing. While research applications are flexible in the way the data are generated and interpreted, this is not the case for regulatory applications where an unambiguous answer, possibly later subject to legal scrutiny, is required. A reference analysis framework would give greater credibility to the data and allow the practitioners to justify their use of an alternative bioinformatic process by referring to a standard. In this publication, we propose a method called omics data analysis framework for regulatory application (R-ODAF), which has been built as a user-friendly pipeline to analyze raw transcriptomics data from microarray and next-generation sequencing. In the R-ODAF, we also propose additional statistical steps to remove the number of false positives obtained from standard data analysis pipelines for RNA-sequencing. We illustrate the added value of R-ODAF, compared to a standard workflow, using a typical toxicogenomics dataset of hepatocytes exposed to paracetamol.
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 | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".