Linear Combination Test for Hierarchical Gene Set Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene-set analysis (GSA) aims to identify sets of differentially expressed genes by a phenotype in DNA microarray studies. Challenges occur due to the salient characteristics of the data: (1) the number of genes is far larger than the number of observations; (2) gene expression measurements, especially within each gene set, can be highly correlated; and (3) the number of gene sets that can be examined is large and increasing rapidly. These challenges call for gene-set testing procedures that have both efficiency in computation for large GSAs and high power in the presence of the high correlation. We propose a new GSA approach called Linear Combination Test (LCT), incorporating the covariance matrix estimator of gene expression into the test statistic. The proposed LCT and two other GSA methods, a modification of Hotelling's T2 using a shrinkage covariance matrix and our SAM-GS (Dinu et. al. 2007), the two methods that have been reported by Tsai and Chen (2009) to perform best in terms of power, are evaluated in simulation studies and a real microarray study. The LCT method is more computationally efficient than the modified Hotelling's T2 and approximates the superb power of the modified Hotelling's T2. LCT is slightly faster than SAM-GS, but more powerful, due to incorporating the covariance matrix estimator. An extra step to enhance the interpretation of GSA results is also proposed in the form of a hierarchical LC (HLC) testing procedure, providing scientists useful hierarchical information on gene sets that LCT identified as differentially expressed.
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 | 0.022 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".