Analysis of Metabolomic Data Using Support Vector Machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolomics is an emerging field providing insight into physiological processes. It is an effective tool to investigate disease diagnosis or conduct toxicological studies by observing changes in metabolite concentrations in various biofluids. Multivariate statistical analysis is generally employed with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) or mass spectrometry (MS) data to determine differences between groups (for instance diseased vs healthy). Characteristic predictive models may be built based on a set of training data, and these models are subsequently used to predict whether new test data falls under a specific class. In this study, metabolomic data is obtained by doing a (1)H NMR spectroscopy on urine samples obtained from healthy subjects (male and female) and patients suffering from Streptococcus pneumoniae. We compare the performance of traditional PLS-DA multivariate analysis to support vector machines (SVMs), a technique widely used in genome studies on two case studies: (1) a case where nearly complete distinction may be seen (healthy versus pneumonia) and (2) a case where distinction is more ambiguous (male versus female). We show that SVMs are superior to PLS-DA in both cases in terms of predictive accuracy with the least number of features. With fewer number of features, SVMs are able to give better predictive model when compared to that of PLS-DA.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".