Validation of Gene Expression Profiles in Genomic Data through Complementary Use of Cluster Analysis and PCA-Related Biplots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput genomic assays are used in molecular biology to explore patterns of joint expression of thousands of genes. These methodologies had relevant developments in the last decade, and concurrently there was a need for appropriate methods for analyzing the massive data generated. Identifying sets of genes and samples characterized by similar values of expression and validating these results are two critical issues related to these investigations because of their clinical implication. From a statistical perspective, unsupervised class discovery methods like Cluster Analysis are generally adopted. However, the use of Cluster Analysis mainly relies on the use of hierarchical techniques without considering possible use of other methods. This is partially due to software availability and to easiness of representation of results through a heatmap, which allows to simultaneously visualize clusterization of genes and samples on the same graphical device. One drawback of this strategy is that clusters’ stability is often neglected, thus leading to over-interpretation of results. Moreover, validation of results using external datasets is still subject of discussion, since it is well known that batch effects may condition gene expression results even after normalization. In this paper we compared several clustering algorithms (hierarchical, k-means, model-based, Affinity Propagation) and stability indices to discover common patterns of expression and to assess clustering reliability, and propose a rank-based passive projection of Principal Components for validation purposes. Results from a study involving 23 tumor cell lines and 76 genes related to a specific biological pathway and derived from a publicly available dataset, are presented.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".