MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4255881914 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14665611

A two-stage normalization method for robust differential expression analysis in microarray experiments

2021· preprint· en· W4255881914 on OpenAlexaff
Shirin Manafi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)Computer scienceDatabase normalizationData miningArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, we introduce an approach to improve the reliability of genetic data analysis. Consistency of the results obtained from microarray data analysis strongly relies on elimination of non-biological variations during data normalization process. Instability in Housekeeping Gene (HKG) expression after performing common normalization methods might be an indication of inefficiency potentially resulting in sampling bias in differential expression analysis. This research aims to reduce the sampling bias in microarray experiments proposing a two-stage normalization algorithm. Proposed approach consists of non-linear Quantile normalization at the first stage and linear HKG based normalization at the second stage. We tested the efficiency of the two-stage normalization method using publicly available microarray datasets obtained from the experiments mainly in the field of reproductive biology. Results show that combined Robust Multiarray Average (RMA) and HKG normalization method reduces the sampling bias in experiments when variations in HKG expression is observed after RMA normalization.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classification→French-language works237,207→