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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.028
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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