MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069716529 · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-s16-s6

Random forests on Hadoop for genome-wide association studies of multivariate neuroimaging phenotypes

2013· article· en· W2069716529 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yue Wang, Wilson Wen Bin Goh, Limsoon Wong, Giovanni Montana

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Bioinformatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Associations and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingUniversity of California, San DiegoGenentechNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of California, Los AngelesServierImperial College LondonNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationSynarcEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilBayer HealthCareAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational University of SingaporeMedpacePfizerBiogenAstraZenecaBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationF. Hoffmann-La RocheAmorfix Life SciencesAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsRandom forestComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroimagingGenome-wide association studyMachine learningGenetic architectureGenetic associationQuantitative trait locusPopulationData miningComputational biologyBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneticsGeneGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Multivariate quantitative traits arise naturally in recent neuroimaging genetics studies, in which both structural and functional variability of the human brain is measured non-invasively through techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). There is growing interest in detecting genetic variants associated with such multivariate traits, especially in genome-wide studies. Random forests (RFs) classifiers, which are ensembles of decision trees, are amongst the best performing machine learning algorithms and have been successfully employed for the prioritisation of genetic variants in case-control studies. RFs can also be applied to produce gene rankings in association studies with multivariate quantitative traits, and to estimate genetic similarities measures that are predictive of the trait. However, in studies involving hundreds of thousands of SNPs and high-dimensional traits, a very large ensemble of trees must be inferred from the data in order to obtain reliable rankings, which makes the application of these algorithms computationally prohibitive. RESULTS: We have developed a parallel version of the RF algorithm for regression and genetic similarity learning tasks in large-scale population genetic association studies involving multivariate traits, called PaRFR (Parallel Random Forest Regression). Our implementation takes advantage of the MapReduce programming model and is deployed on Hadoop, an open-source software framework that supports data-intensive distributed applications. Notable speed-ups are obtained by introducing a distance-based criterion for node splitting in the tree estimation process. PaRFR has been applied to a genome-wide association study on Alzheimer's disease (AD) in which the quantitative trait consists of a high-dimensional neuroimaging phenotype describing longitudinal changes in the human brain structure. PaRFR provides a ranking of SNPs associated to this trait, and produces pair-wise measures of genetic proximity that can be directly compared to pair-wise measures of phenotypic proximity. Several known AD-related variants have been identified, including APOE4 and TOMM40. We also present experimental evidence supporting the hypothesis of a linear relationship between the number of top-ranked mutated states, or frequent mutation patterns, and an indicator of disease severity. AVAILABILITY: The Java codes are freely available at http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~gmontana.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations48
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC BioinformaticsSame topicGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207