MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311675072 · doi:10.1093/pm/pnac197

Protocol for Biospecimen Collection and Analysis Within the BACPAC Research Program

2022· article· en· W4311675072 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aaron J. Fields, Stefan Dudli, Andrew Schrepf, Angie Kim, Bernice Pham, Estefanía Gallego, Sandra Mendoza, Sharon B. Meropol, Jessa Darwin, Gwendolyn Sowa, Nam V. Vo

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of California, San FranciscoYork UniversityNYU Grossman School of MedicineUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsMedicineBioinformaticsEpigeneticsPathologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Biospecimen Collection and Processing Working Group of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) HEAL Initiative BACPAC Research Program was charged with identifying molecular biomarkers of interest to chronic low back pain (cLBP). Having identified biomarkers of interest, the Working Group worked with the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, Center for Biospecimen Research and Development-funded by the Early Phase Pain Investigation Clinical Network Data Coordinating Center-to harmonize consortium-wide and site-specific efforts for biospecimen collection and analysis. Biospecimen collected are saliva, blood (whole, plasma, serum), urine, stool, and spine tissue (paraspinal muscle, ligamentum flavum, vertebral bone, facet cartilage, disc endplate, annulus fibrosus, or nucleus pulposus). The omics data acquisition and analyses derived from the biospecimen include genomics and epigenetics from DNA, proteomics from protein, transcriptomics from RNA, and microbiomics from 16S rRNA. These analyses contribute to the overarching goal of BACPAC to phenotype cLBP and will guide future efforts for precision medicine treatment.

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 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain MedicineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207