Assessing local influence in principal component analysis with application to haematology study data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many medical and health studies, high-dimensional data are often encountered. Principal component analysis (PCA) is a commonly used technique to reduce such data to a few components that includes most of the information provided by the original data. However, PCA is known to be very sensitive to some abnormal observations. Therefore, it is essential to assess such sensitivity in PCA. In this paper, the assessments of local influence based on generalized influence function are developed under the case-weights and additive perturbation schemes, along with a discussion of the perturbation scheme and the generalized influence function approach. When perturbing different variables of the data, it is noted that the directions of the largest joint local influence for the eigenvalues are all the same. Moreover, these directions are completely determined by the score values of the observations, to which an approximate cut-off point is given. The proposed methods are applied to analyse a set of haematology study data for illustration. Results add new insights in finding influential observations in the studied data set.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it