Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text.)
(Updated article of the week text)
 
(348 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Naulaerts BioAndBioInsights2016 10.png|240px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Practical approaches for mining frequent patterns in molecular datasets|Practical approaches for mining frequent patterns in molecular datasets]]"'''
'''"[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]"'''


Pattern detection is an inherent task in the analysis and interpretation of complex and continuously accumulating biological data. Numerous [[wikipedia:Sequential pattern mining|itemset mining]] algorithms have been developed in the last decade to efficiently detect specific pattern classes in data. Although many of these have proven their value for addressing bioinformatics problems, several factors still slow down promising algorithms from gaining popularity in the life science community. Many of these issues stem from the low user-friendliness of these tools and the complexity of their output, which is often large, static, and consequently hard to interpret. Here, we apply three software implementations on common [[bioinformatics]] problems and illustrate some of the advantages and disadvantages of each, as well as inherent pitfalls of biological data mining. Frequent itemset mining exists in many different flavors, and users should decide their software choice based on their research question, programming proficiency, and added value of extra features. ('''[[Journal:Practical approaches for mining frequent patterns in molecular datasets|Full article...]]''')<br />
The introduction of [[ChatGPT]] has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using generative [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) ([[large language model]]s or LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (''N'' = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (who decided to delegate) to oversee future projects ... ('''[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':
''Recently featured'':  
{{flowlist |
: ▪ [[Journal:Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review|Improving the creation and reporting of structured findings during digital pathology review]]
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
: ▪ [[Journal:The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era|The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era]]
* [[Journal:Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study|Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia|Water, water, everywhere: Defining and assessing data sharing in academia]]
* [[Journal:Sigma metrics as a valuable tool for effective analytical performance and quality control planning in the clinical laboratory: A retrospective study|Sigma metrics as a valuable tool for effective analytical performance and quality control planning in the clinical laboratory: A retrospective study]]
}}

Latest revision as of 15:26, 20 May 2024

Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png

"Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence"

The introduction of ChatGPT has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) (large language models or LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (N = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (who decided to delegate) to oversee future projects ... (Full article...)
Recently featured:

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Article_of_the_week&oldid=63646"