Visualization strategies to aid interpretation of <scp>high‐dimensional</scp> genotoxicity data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes a range of high-dimensional data visualization strategies that we have explored for their ability to complement machine learning algorithm predictions derived from MultiFlow® assay results. For this exercise, we focused on seven biomarker responses resulting from the exposure of TK6 cells to each of 126 diverse chemicals over a range of concentrations. Obviously, challenges associated with visualizing seven biomarker responses were further complicated whenever there was a desire to represent the entire 126 chemical data set as opposed to results from a single chemical. Scatter plots, spider plots, parallel coordinate plots, hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis, toxicological prioritization index, multidimensional scaling, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding, and uniform manifold approximation and projection are each considered in turn. Our report provides a comparative analysis of these techniques. In an era where multiplexed assays and machine learning algorithms are becoming the norm, stakeholders should find some of these visualization strategies useful for efficiently and effectively interpreting their high-dimensional data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".