A comparison of bootstrap methods and an adjusted bootstrap approach for estimating the prediction error in microarray classification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper first provides a critical review on some existing methods for estimating the prediction error in classifying microarray data where the number of genes greatly exceeds the number of specimens. Special attention is given to the bootstrap-related methods. When the sample size n is small, we find that all the reviewed methods suffer from either substantial bias or variability. We introduce a repeated leave-one-out bootstrap (RLOOB) method that predicts for each specimen in the sample using bootstrap learning sets of size ln. We then propose an adjusted bootstrap (ABS) method that fits a learning curve to the RLOOB estimates calculated with different bootstrap learning set sizes. The ABS method is robust across the situations we investigate and provides a slightly conservative estimate for the prediction error. Even with small samples, it does not suffer from large upward bias as the leave-one-out bootstrap and the 0.632+ bootstrap, and it does not suffer from large variability as the leave-one-out cross-validation in microarray applications.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it