Gaetan Burgio

@GaetanBurgio

Group leader, Australian National University ANU, Australia. Geneticist working on infections & . Opinions and views ....

Canberra, Australia
Vrijeme pridruživanja: kolovoz 2014.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @GaetanBurgio

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @GaetanBurgio

  1. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    Poništi
  2. 4. velj

    How long this one will be retracted? Certainly significantly more time than the HIV and paper.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. 4. velj

    Well, we spent the last few days discussing on non peer reviewed & spread of conspiracy theories. Well, should we discuss too the spread of conspiracy theories based on paper on asymptomatic cases of ?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    4. velj

    More comments/commenters on , please. Would very much help reporters trying to cover one (or, equally important, explaining to editors why we don't think that's a good idea).

    Poništi
  5. 3. velj

    In short this shows that Post publication peer review (PPPR) works very well. Of course the screening process is not perfect but PPPR enables rapid correction and of the scientific literature. I would argue we don't comment enough on BioRxiv and we should do more.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 3. velj

    What I like in this instance is within hours the preprint was identified as flawed, we commented and the day after the paper was retracted. All transparent and many of us (70 comments), not just 2 anonymous reviewers could comments on this on BiorXiv site or Twitter

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 3. velj

    And once it is published, it takes weeks, months or years to get retracted See in the CRISPR field it took over a year to retract this paper making insane claims or than one full of duplications took few weeks to get retracted

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 3. velj

    Besides the Wakefield paper on Vaccination & Autism, we don't need to go that far to find papers with insane claims published after thorough peer reviews For example the 2019-nCov paper and snake is still there

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 3. velj

    colleagues argue that this preprint would never have been published in a peer-review journal and I strongly disagree with the statement. The more outrageous and insane the claim is, better chance it will get published in high impact journal and there are tones of examples

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 3. velj

    I agree with the piece. The quick retraction of the "uncanny" paper shows that peer review on works, in fact in my view much better than the current system based on 2-3 anonymous peer-reviewers prior to publication

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 3. velj

    A nice paper on the identification of the major siderophore in Pseudomonas PvdS as a regulator of Type I-F acquisition system, CRISPR interference and HGT by binding to a consensus sequence in Cas1 promoter. Nice !

    Poništi
  12. 3. velj

    colleagues medical researchers in Australia. If you wish to participate to the grant review panel for the on behalf of the Department of Health. Here is your chance !

    Poništi
  13. 3. velj

    "'An excuse for racism': Chinese international students are in limbo and they are angry" This article outlines some serious issues with racism exacerbated by outbreak

    Poništi
  14. 2. velj

    We finally made series of recommendations on the use of for experiments going forward. Please feel free to read our paper. It is in and please feel free to download it.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 2. velj

    And of course, a very important aspect is the choice of the algorithm for a experiment. Well it depends a lot on the type of experiment, the size of the training dataset and so on.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 2. velj

    Next is how to translate your features from a experiment into a readable features. Well this involves tokenization

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 2. velj

    Another aspect we discuss is the features to include into Algorithm. Do we use only guideRNA sequence, nucleotide composition at target site, epigenetic information... How many features to define? Well largely depends on your training dataset.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 2. velj

    A crucial aspect we discussed is data labelling. What is the size of the training dataset? how to define the features for the training model? how to label it & avoid the major pitfall, which is the unbalanced training dataset. Well, the details are in the paper. 😀

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 2. velj

    This paper is primarily for researchers rather than computational biologists expert in because well, there is a lot going on in this space and it is very easy to be lost with the terminology and ML algorithms if you are not familiar with ML

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 2. velj

    Delighted to share our first 2020 publication lead by & with my long standing collaborator & corresponding author on the use of to design gene editing experiments for Briefings in Bioinformatics

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·