MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127224364 · doi:10.1109/ainaw.2007.97

Application of Double Clustering to Gene Expression Data for Class Prediction

2007· article· en· W2127224364 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Alshalalfa, Reda Alhajj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceSupport vector machineData miningNoise (video)Class (philosophy)Data setPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Transformation (genetics)Binary dataExpression (computer science)Binary numberMathematicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracting significant features from gene expression data is a hot subject that continues to receive great attention. Many methods have been proposed in the literature to deal with this issue, but all of these methods deal with features obtained directly from the data. Since microarray data exhibit a high degree of noise, in this paper we try to reduce the noise by using double clustering approach to identify reduced set of features capable of distinguishing between two classes. Also, we showed that the transformation of the data plays a significant role in classification. We have used two forms of data, and we have used k-means and self organizing map for clustering. Support vector machine and binary decision trees are used for classification. As a result of the conducted experiments on AML/ALL data, we have observed that CSVM is able to correctly classify the whole training and testing data when the data is log2 transformed using only few features.

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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207