MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231631488 · doi:10.1002/sam.10048

Application of model selection technique in chemogenomic data analysis

2009· article· en· W4231631488 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Analysis and Data Mining The ASA Data Science Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceData miningDependency (UML)Model selectionBayesian networkSelection (genetic algorithm)Data setConstruct (python library)Set (abstract data type)Bayesian information criterionBayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the advent of high‐throughput chemogenomic data, it becomes crucially important to extract the important genes which influence the drug activities among the huge number of candidate genes. By employing model selection technique, especially designed for high‐dimensional data, we propose to develop a systematic approach to construct the network elucidating the dependency relationships among the drugs and the genes. Based on the extended Bayesian Information Criterion, we are able to select the best parsimonious network structure. A real National Cancer Institute (NCI)‐60 panel data set is analyzed to demonstrate the utility of the method. The biological implications of the results are discussed. Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining 2: 186–191, 2009

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.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.321 · 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