MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling Gene Regulation Networks Using Ordinary Differential Equations

2011· article· en· W70003281 on OpenAlex
Jiguo Cao, Xin Qi, Hongyu Zhao

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsOdeOrdinary differential equationGene regulatory networkComputer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)MathematicsDifferential equationApplied mathematicsGeneGene expressionBiologyArtificial intelligenceGeneticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gene regulation networks are composed of transcription factors, their interactions, and targets. It is of great interest to reconstruct and study these regulatory networks from genomics data. Ordinary differential equations (ODEs) are popular tools to model the dynamic system of gene regulation networks. Although the form of ODEs is often provided based on expert knowledge, the values for ODE parameters are seldom known. It is a challenging problem to infer ODE parameters from gene expression data, because the ODEs do not have analytic solutions and the time-course gene expression data are usually sparse and associated with large noise. In this chapter, we review how the generalized profiling method can be applied to obtain estimates for ODE parameters from the time-course gene expression data. We also summarize the consistency and asymptotic normality results for the generalized profiling estimates.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.304 · 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