MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301366341 · doi:10.1016/j.xpro.2022.101748

Assessment of protein inclusions in cultured cells using automated image analysis

2022· article· en· W4301366341 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

VenueSTAR Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsGenome British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilIllawarra Health and Medical Research InstituteAlberta InnovatesUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of WollongongFightMNDMotor Neurone Disease Research AustraliaMotor Neurone Disease AustraliaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMotor Neurone Disease Research Institute of Australia
KeywordsProtocol (science)MicroscopyFluorescence microscopeComputer scienceComputational biologyScalabilityArtificial intelligenceChemistryBiological systemBiologyFluorescencePathologyDatabaseMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteinaceous inclusions are associated with neurodegenerative diseases and cell models are often used to determine genetic and chemical modifiers of their formation. This protocol involves the usage of automated microscopy and machine learning-based image analysis to accurately quantify the levels of protein inclusion formation in cultured cells from fluorescence microscopy images. This protocol is highly scalable and can be applied to a few images or large datasets. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to McAlary et al. (2022).

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.350 · 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