MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020313378 · doi:10.1109/bibm.2011.105

Employing Machine Learning Techniques for Data Enrichment: Increasing the Number of Samples for Effective Gene Expression Data Analysis

2011· article· en· W2020313378 on OpenAlexaff
Utku Erdoğdu, Mehmet Tan, Reda Alhajj, Faruk Polat, Douglas J. Demetrick, Jon Rokne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Data miningIndependence (probability theory)Set (abstract data type)Machine learningProbabilistic logicSample (material)Expression (computer science)Domain (mathematical analysis)Genetic algorithmArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For certain domains, e.g. bioinformatics, producing more real samples is costly, error prone and time consuming. Therefore, there is a need for an intelligent automated process capable of substituting the real samples by artificial samples that carry the same characteristics as the real samples and hence could be used for running comprehensive testing of new methodologies. Motivated by this need, we describe a novel approach that integrates Probabilistic Boolean Network and genetic algorithm based techniques into a framework that uses some existing real samples as input and successfully produces new samples as output. The new samples will inspire the characteristics of the existing samples without duplicating them. This leads to diversity in the samples and hence a more rich set of samples to be used in testing. The developed framework incorporates two models (perspectives) for sample generation. We illustrate its applicability for producing new gene expression data samples, a high demanding area that has not received attention. The two perspectives employed in the process are based on models that are not closely related, the independence eliminates the bias of having the produced approach covering only certain characteristics of the domain and leading to samples skewed towards one direction. The produced results are very promising in showing the effectiveness, usefulness and applicability of the proposed multi-model framework.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207