MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304588764 · doi:10.1182/blood.2022016095

Minimal information for reporting a genomics experiment

2022· article· en· W4304588764 on OpenAlexaff
Kostiantyn Dreval, Paul C. Boutros, Ryan D. Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteEuropean Bioinformatics Institute
KeywordsExomeGenomicsExome sequencingBiologyComputational biologyIdentification (biology)GenomeData qualityGeneticsBioinformaticsGeneMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exome and genome sequencing has facilitated the identification of hundreds of genes and other regions that are recurrently mutated in hematologic neoplasms. The data sets from these studies theoretically provide opportunities. Quality differences between data sets can confound secondary analyses. We explore the consequences of these on the conclusions from some recent studies of B-cell lymphomas. We highlight the need for a minimum reporting standard to increase transparency in genomic research.

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)0.206
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.403
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2060.403
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.022

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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReporting
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207