MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106283722 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbn054

Potential Bias in GO::TermFinder

2008· article· en· W2106283722 on OpenAlexaff
Robert M Flight, Peter D. Wentzell

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBonferroni correctionFalse discovery rateMultiple comparisons problemStatisticsSampling biasPermutation (music)Sampling (signal processing)PopulationSimple random sampleIndependence (probability theory)Random permutationMathematicsComputer scienceData miningSample size determinationMedicineBiologyGeneticsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased need for multiple statistical comparisons under conditions of non-independence in bioinformatics applications, such as DNA microarray data analysis, has led to the development of alternatives to the conventional Bonferroni correction for adjusting P-values. The use of the false discovery rate (FDR), in particular, has grown considerably. However, the calculation of the FDR frequently depends on drawing random samples from a population, and inappropriate sampling will result in a bias in the calculated FDR. In this work, we demonstrate a bias due to incorrect random sampling in the widely used GO::TermFinder package. Both T(2) and permutation tests are used to confirm the bias for a test set of data, which leads to an overestimation of the FDR of about 10%. A simple fix to the random sampling method is proposed to remove the bias.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBriefings in BioinformaticsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207