Methods for labeling error detection in microarrays based on the effect of data perturbation on the regression model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Mislabeled samples often appear in gene expression profile because of the similarity of different sub-type of disease and the subjective misdiagnosis. The mislabeled samples deteriorate supervised learning procedures. The LOOE-sensitivity algorithm is an approach for mislabeled sample detection for microarray based on data perturbation. However, the failure of measuring the perturbing effect makes the LOOE-sensitivity algorithm a poor performance. The purpose of this article is to design a novel detection method for mislabeled samples of microarray, which could take advantage of the measuring effect of data perturbations. RESULTS: To measure the effect of data perturbation, we define an index named perturbing influence value (PIV), based on the support vector machine (SVM) regression model. The Column Algorithm (CAPIV), Row Algorithm (RAPIV) and progressive Row Algorithm (PRAPIV) based on the PIV value are proposed to detect the mislabeled samples. Experimental results obtained by using six artificial datasets and five microarray datasets demonstrate that all proposed methods in this article are superior to LOOE-sensitivity. Moreover, compared with the simple SVM and CL-stability, the PRAPIV algorithm shows an increase in precision and high recall. AVAILABILITY: The program and source code (in JAVA) are publicly available at http://ccst.jlu.edu.cn/CSBG/PIVS/index.htm
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".