MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963796042 · doi:10.1080/10485250802613558

A Bayesian nonparametric method for model evaluation: application to genetic studies

2009· article· en· W1963796042 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of nonparametric statistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsInferenceSample size determinationNonparametric statisticsBayesian probabilityBayesian inferenceLinear modelMathematicsStatistical inferenceEconometricsComputer scienceMachine learningStatisticsArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical models applied to genetic studies commonly assume linear relationships (between disease and risk factors) and simple distributional forms (by relying on asymptotic methods) for inference. However, when the sample size is small, inference using traditional asymptotic models can be problematic. Moreover, the gene-disease relationship is not always linear. In this article, we present a new nonparametric Bayesian method for model assessment, and we demonstrate the advantages of this approach particularly when the sample size is small and/or the true model is non-linear. We evaluate our approach on simulated data and find that it performs substantially better than alternative models. We also apply our method to two real studies: diagnosis of conventional high-grade non-metastatic osteosarcoma, and survival in Burkitt's lymphoma.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it