MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016890367 · doi:10.5430/air.v2n2p96

Use of biclustering for missing value imputation in gene expression data

2013· article· en· W2016890367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
K.O. Cheng, Ngai-Fong Law, Wan-Chi Siu

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong Polytechnic University
KeywordsBiclusteringImputation (statistics)Missing dataData miningComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsArtificial intelligenceCluster analysisMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA microarray data always contains missing values. As subsequent analysis such as biclustering can only be applied on complete data, these missing values have to be imputed before any biclusters can be detected. Existing imputation methods exploit coherence among expression values in the microarray data. In view that biclustering attempts to find correlated expression values within the data, we propose to combine the missing value imputation and biclustering into a single framework in which the two processes are performed iteratively. In this way, the missing value imputation can improve bicluster analysis and the coherence in detected biclusters can be exploited for better missing value estimation. Experiments have been conducted on artificial datasets and real datasets to verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in reducing estimation errors of missing values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.416
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.055 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207