Probing the rules of cell coordination in live tissues by interpretable machine learning based on graph neural networks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robustness in developing and homeostatic tissues is supported by various types of spatiotemporal cell-to-cell interactions. Although live imaging and cell tracking are powerful in providing direct evidence of cell coordination rules, extracting and comparing these rules across many tissues with potentially different length and timescales of coordination requires a versatile framework of analysis. Here we demonstrate that graph neural network (GNN) models are suited for this purpose, by showing how they can be applied to predict cell fate in tissues and utilized to infer the cell interactions governing the multicellular dynamics. Analyzing the live mammalian epidermis data, where spatiotemporal graphs constructed from cell tracks and cell contacts are given as inputs, GNN discovers distinct neighbor cell fate coordination rules that depend on the region of the body. This approach demonstrates how the GNN framework is powerful in inferring general cell interaction rules from live data without prior knowledge of the signaling involved.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it