Transcriptomics for Clinical and Experimental Biology Research: Hang on a Seq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequencing the human genome empowers translational medicine, facilitating transcriptome-wide molecular diagnosis, pathway biology, and drug repositioning. Initially, microarrays are used to study the bulk transcriptome; but now short-read RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) predominates. Positioned as a superior technology, that makes the discovery of novel transcripts routine, most RNA-seq analyses are in fact modeled on the known transcriptome. Limitations of the RNA-seq methodology have emerged, while the design of, and the analysis strategies applied to, arrays have matured. An equitable comparison between these technologies is provided, highlighting advantages that modern arrays hold over RNA-seq. Array protocols more accurately quantify constitutively expressed protein coding genes across tissue replicates, and are more reliable for studying lower expressed genes. Arrays reveal long noncoding RNAs (lncRNA) are neither sparsely nor lower expressed than protein coding genes. Heterogeneous coverage of constitutively expressed genes observed with RNA-seq, undermines the validity and reproducibility of pathway analyses. The factors driving these observations, many of which are relevant to long-read or single-cell sequencing are discussed. As proposed herein, a reappreciation of bulk transcriptomic methods is required, including wider use of the modern high-density array data-to urgently revise existing anatomical RNA reference atlases and assist with more accurate study of lncRNAs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".