Class prediction and discovery using gene microarray andproteomics mass spectroscopy data: curses, caveats, cautions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Two practical realities constrain the analysis of microarray data, mass spectra from proteomics, and biomedical infrared or magnetic resonance spectra. One is the 'curse of dimensionality': the number of features characterizing these data is in the thousands or tens of thousands. The other is the 'curse of dataset sparsity': the number of samples is limited. The consequences of these two curses are far-reaching when such data are used to classify the presence or absence of disease. RESULTS: Using very simple classifiers, we show for several publicly available microarray and proteomics datasets how these curses influence classification outcomes. In particular, even if the sample per feature ratio is increased to the recommended 5-10 by feature extraction/reduction methods, dataset sparsity can render any classification result statistically suspect. In addition, several 'optimal' feature sets are typically identifiable for sparse datasets, all producing perfect classification results, both for the training and independent validation sets. This non-uniqueness leads to interpretational difficulties and casts doubt on the biological relevance of any of these 'optimal' feature sets. We suggest an approach to assess the relative quality of apparently equally good classifiers.
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 | 0.180 | 0.490 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".