A Marginal Mixture Model for Selecting Differentially Expressed Genes across Two Types of Tissue Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian hierarchical models that characterize the distributions of (transformed) gene profiles have been proven very useful and flexible in selecting differentially expressed genes across different types of tissue samples (e.g. Lo and Gottardo, 2007). However, the marginal mean and variance of these models are assumed to be the same for different gene clusters and for different tissue types. Moreover, it is not easy to determine which of the many competing Bayesian hierarchical models provides the best fit for a specific microarray data set. To address these two issues, we propose a marginal mixture model that directly models the marginal distribution of transformed gene profiles. Specifically, we approximate the marginal distributions of transformed gene profiles via a mixture of three-component multivariate Normal distributions, each component of which has the same structures of marginal mean vector and covariance matrix as those for Bayesian hierarchical models, but the values can differ. Based on the proposed model, a method is derived to select genes differentially expressed across two types of tissue samples. The derived gene selection method performs well on a real microarray data set and consistently has the best performance (based on class agreement indices) compared with several other gene selection methods on simulated microarray data sets generated from three different mixture models.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".