MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385064779 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0287739

Accelerated high-throughput imaging and phenotyping system for small organisms

2023· article· en· W4385064779 on OpenAlexafffund
Talha Köse, Tiago F. Lins, Jessie Wang, Anna O'Brien, David Sinton, Megan E. Frederickson

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsThroughputAutomationComputer scienceBiologyData collectionData scienceComputational biologyBiochemical engineeringStatisticsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studying the complex web of interactions in biological communities requires large multifactorial experiments with sufficient statistical power. Automation tools reduce the time and labor associated with setup, data collection, and analysis in experiments that untangle these webs. We developed tools for high-throughput experimentation (HTE) in duckweeds, small aquatic plants that are amenable to autonomous experimental preparation and image-based phenotyping. We showcase the abilities of our HTE system in a study with 6,000 experimental units grown across 2,000 treatments. These automated tools facilitated the collection and analysis of time-resolved growth data, which revealed finer dynamics of plant-microbe interactions across environmental gradients. Altogether, our HTE system can run experiments with up to 11,520 experimental units and can be adapted for other small organisms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology→French-language works237,207→