A data-centric perspective on exposomics data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exposomics represents a systematic approach to investigate the etiology of diseases by formally integrating individuals’ entire environmental exposures and associated biological responses into the traditional genotype-phenotype framework. The field is largely enabled by various omics technologies which offer practical means to comprehensively measure key components in exposomics. The bottleneck in exposomics has gradually shifted from data collection to data analysis. Effective and easy-to-use bioinformatics tools and computational workflows are urgently needed to help obtain robust associations and to derive actionable insights from the observational, heterogenous, and multi-omics datasets collected in exposomics studies. This data-centric perspective starts with an overview of the main components and common analysis workflows in exposomics. We then introduce six computational approaches that have proven effective in addressing some key analytical challenges, including linear modeling with covariate adjustment, dimensionality reduction for covariance detection, neural networks for identification of complex interactions, network visual analytics for organizing and interpreting multi-omics results, Mendelian randomization for causal inference, and cause-effect validation by coupling effect-directed analysis with dose-response assessment. Finally, we present a series of well-designed web-based tools, and briefly discuss how they can be used for exposomics data analysis.
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 | 0.038 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".