Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the past few years, many high-throughput techniques have been developed and applied to biological studies. These techniques such as “next generation” genome sequencing, chip-on-chip, microarray and so on can be used to measure gene expression and gene regulatory elements in a genome-wide scale. Moreover, as these technologies become more affordable and accessible, they have become a driving force in modern biology. As a result, huge amount biological data have been produced, with the expectation of increasing number of such datasets to be generated in the future. High-throughput data are more comprehensive and unbiased, but ‘real signals’ or biological insights, molecular mechanisms and biological principles are buried in the flood of data. In current biological studies, the bottleneck is no longer a lack of data, but the lack of ingenuity and computational means to extract biological insights and principles by integrating knowledge and high-throughput data. Here I am reviewing the concepts and principles of network biology and the computational methods which can be applied to cancer research. Furthermore, I am providing a practical guide for computational analysis of cancer gene networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".