MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323657381 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c08932

Estimating and Assessing Differential Equation Models with Time-Course Data

2023· article· en· W4323657381 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel W. K. Wong, Shihao Yang, S. C. Kou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOdeOrdinary differential equationInferenceContext (archaeology)Computer scienceComputationRange (aeronautics)Numerical integrationProcess (computing)Gaussian processAlgorithmApplied mathematicsDifferential equationMathematicsGaussianArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ordinary differential equation (ODE) models are widely used to describe chemical or biological processes. This Article considers the estimation and assessment of such models on the basis of time-course data. Due to experimental limitations, time-course data are often noisy, and some components of the system may not be observed. Furthermore, the computational demands of numerical integration have hindered the widespread adoption of time-course analysis using ODEs. To address these challenges, we explore the efficacy of the recently developed MAGI (MAnifold-constrained Gaussian process Inference) method for ODE inference. First, via a range of examples we show that MAGI is capable of inferring the parameters and system trajectories, including unobserved components, with appropriate uncertainty quantification. Second, we illustrate how MAGI can be used to assess and select different ODE models with time-course data based on MAGI's efficient computation of model predictions. Overall, we believe MAGI is a useful method for the analysis of time-course data in the context of ODE models, which bypasses the need for any numerical integration.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207