Bayesian–frequentist hybrid model with application to the analysis of gene copy number changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene copy number (GCN) changes are common characteristics of many genetic diseases. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a new technology widely used today to screen the GCN changes in mutant cells with high resolution genome-wide. Statistical methods for analyzing such CGH data have been evolving. Existing methods are either frequentist's, or full Bayesian. The former often has computational advantage, while the latter can incorporate prior information into the model, but could be misleading when one does not have sound prior information. In an attempt to take full advantages of both approaches, we develop a Bayesian-frequentist hybrid approach, in which a subset of the model parameters is inferred by the Bayesian method, while the rest parameters by the frequentist's. This new hybrid approach provides advantages over those of the Bayesian or frequentist's method used alone. This is especially the case when sound prior information is available on part of the parameters, and the sample size is relatively small. Spatial dependence and false discovery rate are also discussed, and the parameter estimation is efficient. As an illustration, we used the proposed hybrid approach to analyze a real CGH data.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".