MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118070789 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl612

Flexible empirical Bayes models for differential gene expression

2006· article· en· W2118070789 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Lo, Raphaël Gottardo

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBayes' theoremInferenceBayesian probabilityBayesian inferenceBayes factorData miningSensitivity (control systems)Hierarchical database modelArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Inference about differential expression is a typical objective when analyzing gene expression data. Recently, Bayesian hierarchical models have become increasingly popular for this type of problem. The two most common hierarchical models are the hierarchical Gamma-Gamma (GG) and Lognormal-Normal (LNN) models. However, to facilitate inference, some unrealistic assumptions have been made. One such assumption is that of a common coefficient of variation across genes, which can adversely affect the resulting inference. RESULTS: In this paper, we extend both the GG and LNN modeling frameworks to allow for gene-specific variances and propose EM based algorithms for parameter estimation. The proposed methodology is evaluated on three experimental datasets: one cDNA microarray experiment and two Affymetrix spike-in experiments. The two extended models significantly reduce the false positive rate while keeping a high sensitivity when compared to the originals. Finally, using a simulation study we show that the new frameworks are also more robust to model misspecification. AVAILABILITY: The R code for implementing the proposed methodology can be downloaded at http://www.stat.ubc.ca/~c.lo/FEBarrays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary material is available at http://www.stat.ubc.ca/~c.lo/FEBarrays/supp.pdf.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207