How I think
I am most comfortable in the middle ground between biology and engineering. I care about the mechanism, but I also care about whether the spreadsheet, split, figure, and code actually support the claim.
Student researcher + computational biology
I am a student researcher drawn to the places where biology becomes measurable: fragments of DNA in blood, methylation changes across cancer cohorts, cell states in tumors, and protein structures that can be tested instead of just imagined.
The thread running through my work is validation. I like building models, but I am more interested in whether they survive the uncomfortable parts: clinical controls, held-out data, ablation studies, negative controls, technical confounders, and clear limits on what the results can prove.
My goal is to become the kind of researcher who can connect biological intuition, reproducible code, careful validation, and honest communication without treating any one of those as optional.
About me
I started from a curiosity about disease biology and kept getting pulled toward the computational side because it lets a question become a pipeline: find the data, clean it, decide what a fair test would be, run the model, and then ask what could have fooled it.
I am most comfortable in the middle ground between biology and engineering. I care about the mechanism, but I also care about whether the spreadsheet, split, figure, and code actually support the claim.
I want to contribute to computational genomics, cancer diagnostics, protein modeling, and translational research where models are useful because they are tested against the messy parts of biology.
I also care about communication and discipline: public science writing, Sanskrit teaching, competitive swimming, and learning how to make hard ideas easier for other people to enter.
How I work
My favorite problems sit at the point where biology, data, and communication all matter at once. I am trying to train myself to be curious without being careless, ambitious without overclaiming, and technical without losing the biological question.
I try to start with a mechanism or clinical question before touching the model. A clean metric is less meaningful if the biological setup is weak.
I like held-out tests, repeated splits, negative controls, ablations, and clear limitations because they make the result harder to fool.
I am increasingly interested in how sequence models and protein-structure tools can connect molecular hypotheses to testable designs.
I care about writing because a project is not really finished until another person can understand what was done and what was not proven.
Research timeline
Deepened my work in cancer genomics, patient-level validation, external checks, ablation studies, PR-AUC, confusion matrices, negative controls, and technical-confounder audits.
Studied how methylation, expression, and cohort-scale signals can be translated into supervised learning problems without losing sight of clinical context.
Studied DNA damage and repair concepts through micropipetting, DNA extraction, and gel electrophoresis, with formal public recognition for the project.
Continuing work in precision medicine, genetics, machine learning, public science writing, Sanskrit teaching, and competitive swimming.
Writing and manuscripts
I am learning that clear writing is part of the science. It forces me to separate what the evidence supports from what I hope the next experiment might show.
Technical toolkit
Contact
Interested in genomics data analysis, literature review, reproducibility checks, model validation, and manuscript support during the fall or winter.