MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365134769 · doi:10.1002/gepi.22526

RoPE: A robust profile likelihood method for differential gene expression analysis

2023· article· en· W4365134769 on OpenAlexafffund
Lehang Zhong, Lisa J. Strug

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetic Epidemiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenGovernment of CanadaGovernment of OntarioNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCystic Fibrosis CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome CanadaUniversity of TorontoCystic Fibrosis Foundation
KeywordsRopeBayes' theoremParametric statisticsSample size determinationComputer scienceStatistical hypothesis testingNonparametric statisticsLikelihood-ratio testSample (material)StatisticsBiologyComputational biologyMathematicsBayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variation in RNA-Seq data creates modeling challenges for differential gene expression (DE) analysis. Statistical approaches address conventional small sample sizes and implement empirical Bayes or non-parametric tests, but frequently produce different conclusions. Increasing sample sizes enable proposal of alternative DE paradigms. Here we develop RoPE, which uses a data-driven adjustment for variation and a robust profile likelihood ratio DE test. Simulation studies show RoPE can have improved performance over existing tools as sample size increases and has the most reliable control of error rates. Application of RoPE demonstrates that an active Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection downregulates the SLC9A3 Cystic Fibrosis modifier gene.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetic EpidemiologySame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207