Heat-map claim
Wed, Oct 28, 2026 · Week 10 · Genetics of Disease (Medical Interventions)
Today's goal: Read a microarray heat map and write a claim that separates disease risk from disease diagnosis.
This is a model of the work you should turn in today. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Note: This is a parallel model on a different case (a newborn metabolic screening panel), not the heat-map task you are doing today. Use it to see the CER format and depth, then build your own claim from your own grid.\n\nI shaded four screening values from a newborn blood-spot panel into a small strip, using a darker color for values above the reference cutoff and a lighter color for values below it.\n\nClaim: The pattern in this sample suggests an elevated risk of phenylketonuria, especially in the raised amino-acid values, but it does not confirm the condition.\n\nEvidence: The phenylalanine level is 6 mg/dL and the phenylalanine-to-tyrosine ratio is 3.5, both above the standard screening cutoffs, which matches the pattern flagged for follow-up in the reference.\n\nWhy this is risk, not diagnosis: A screening panel is designed to catch samples that need a closer look, so an above-cutoff result raises the probability of the condition rather than proving it. Some raised values come from feeding timing, prematurity, or lab handling, so a confirmatory test such as a plasma amino-acid analysis or a genetic test is needed before anyone can say the newborn has the disorder. For that reason my claim names risk and points to follow-up, not a confirmed diagnosis.\n\nFalsifiability check: If a confirmatory plasma amino-acid test came back within the normal range, the risk signal would be explained as a false positive and my claim would be wrong, which shows the claim is testable.
| Gene | Fold change | Heat-map shade |
|---|---|---|
| Gene 3 | 4.0 | darkest |
| Gene 1 | 3.2 | dark |
| Gene 4 | 0.5 | light |
| Gene 2 | 0.25 | lightest |
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Parallel worked CER: a shaded results strip for a newborn screening panel and a claim with two numeric values as evidence that separates screening risk from diagnosis. Models the format only. Your own heat-map claim is different.
- Write one defensible claim.
- Choose specific evidence that supports the claim.
- Explain the scientific rule that connects the evidence to the claim.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Submit your heat map and claim to Schoology.
Turn in: Worked CER on a parallel case
Go to Schoology to turn this in.
Submit one PDF. Put your first and last name in the document header. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf.
Open Schoology PDF upload helpIf you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about heat-map claim. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Distinguishing disease risk from diagnosis when reading expression data.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.