Classifying high-dimensional phenotypes with ensemble learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Classification is a fundamental task in biology used to assign members to a class. While linear discriminant functions have long been effective, advances in phenotypic data collection are yielding increasingly high-dimensional datasets with more classes, unequal class covariances, and non-linear distributions. Numerous studies have deployed machine learning techniques to classify such distributions, but they are often restricted to a particular organism, a limited set of algorithms, and/or a specific classification task. In addition, the utility of ensemble learning or the strategic combination of models has not been fully explored.We performed a meta-analysis of 33 algorithms across 20 datasets containing over 20,000 high-dimensional shape phenotypes using an ensemble learning framework. Both binary (e.g., sex, environment) and multi-class (e.g., species, genotype, population) classification tasks were considered. The ensemble workflow contains functions for preprocessing, training individual learners and ensembles, and model evaluation. We evaluated algorithm performance within and among datasets. Furthermore, we quantified the extent to which various dataset and phenotypic properties impact performance.We found that discriminant analysis variants and neural networks were the most accurate base learners on average. However, their performance varied substantially between datasets. Ensemble models achieved the highest performance on average, both within and among datasets, increasing average accuracy by up to 3% over the top base learner. Higher class R2 values, mean class shape distances, and between- vs. within-class variances were positively associated with performance, whereas higher class covariance distances were negatively associated. Class balance and total sample size were not predictive.Learning-based classification is a complex task driven by many hyperparameters. We demonstrate that selecting and optimizing an algorithm based on the results of another study is a flawed strategy. Ensemble models instead offer a flexible approach that is data agnostic and exceptionally accurate. By assessing the impact of various dataset and phenotypic properties on classification performance, we also offer potential explanations for variation in performance. Researchers interested in maximizing performance stand to benefit from the simplicity and effectiveness of our approach made accessible via the R package pheble.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».