Transcriptomic congruence analysis for evaluating model organisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model organisms are instrumental substitutes for human studies to expedite basic, translational, and clinical research. Despite their indispensable role in mechanistic investigation and drug development, molecular congruence of animal models to humans has long been questioned and debated. Little effort has been made for an objective quantification and mechanistic exploration of a model organism's resemblance to humans in terms of molecular response under disease or drug treatment. We hereby propose a framework, namely Congruence Analysis for Model Organisms (CAMO), for transcriptomic response analysis by developing threshold-free differential expression analysis, quantitative concordance/discordance scores incorporating data variabilities, pathway-centric downstream investigation, knowledge retrieval by text mining, and topological gene module detection for hypothesis generation. Instead of a genome-wide vague and dichotomous answer of "poorly" or "greatly" mimicking humans, CAMO assists researchers to numerically quantify congruence, to dissect true cross-species differences from unwanted biological or cohort variabilities, and to visually identify molecular mechanisms and pathway subnetworks that are best or least mimicked by model organisms, which altogether provides foundations for hypothesis generation and subsequent translational decisions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".