New generalized metric based on branch length distance to compare B cell lineage trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The B cell lineage tree encapsulates the successive phases of B cell differentiation and maturation, transitioning from hematopoietic stem cells to mature, antibody-secreting cells within the immune system. Mathematically, this lineage can be conceptualized as an evolutionary tree, where each node represents a distinct stage in B cell development, and the edges reflect the differentiation pathways. To compare these lineage trees, a rigorous mathematical metric is essential. Analyzing B cell lineage trees mathematically and quantifying changes in lineage attributes over time necessitates a comparison methodology capable of accurately assessing and measuring these changes. Addressing the intricacies of multiple B cell lineage tree comparisons, this study introduces a novel metric that enhances the precision of comparative analysis. This metric is formulated on principles of metric theory and evolutionary biology, quantifying the dissimilarities between lineage trees by measuring branch length distance and weight. By providing a framework for systematically classifying lineage trees, this metric facilitates the development of predictive models that are crucial for the creation of targeted immunotherapy and vaccines. To validate the effectiveness of this new metric, synthetic datasets that mimic the complexity and variability of real B cell lineage structures are employed. We demonstrated the ability of the new metric method to accurately capture the evolutionary nuances of B cell lineages.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".