Flexible empirical Bayes models for differential gene expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".