MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320913071 · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05633-w

The case for standardizing gene nomenclature in vertebrates

2023· letter· en· W4320913071 on OpenAlexaff
Fiona McCarthy, Tamsin E. M. Jones, Anne E. Kwitek, Cynthia L. Smith, Peter D. Vize, Monte Westerfield, Elspeth A. Bruford

Bibliographic record

VenueNature · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of Food and AgricultureNational Institutes of HealthWellcome TrustEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentU.S. Department of AgricultureHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsNomenclatureGene nomenclatureGeneBiologyComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsZoologyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standardized gene nomenclature supports unambiguous communication and identification of the scientific literature associated with genes; to support the increasing number of annotated genomes that are now available for comparative studies, gene nomenclature authorities coordinate the assignment of approved gene names that can be readily applied across species. Theofanopoulou et al. 1 propose a new nomenclature for the genes that encode oxytocin and arginine vasopressin and their receptors. Rather than changing to a different nomenclature, we suggest minor updates to the current approved nomenclature of these vertebrate genes to better reflect their evolutionary history. We call on authors, journal editors and reviewers to help support communication and indexing of gene-related publications by working with existing gene nomenclature committees and ensuring that standardized gene nomenclature is routinely used.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0040.003
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatureSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207