MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134335091 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn211

A correction for estimating error when using the Local Pooled Error Statistical Test

2008· article· en· W2134335091 on OpenAlexaff
Carl Murie, Robert Nadon

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioconductorSample size determinationSoftwareStatisticsComputer scienceType I and type II errorsSample (material)R packageStandard errorStatistical hypothesis testingMultiple comparisons problemData miningMathematicsProgramming languageBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Jain et al. introduced the Local Pooled Error (LPE) statistical test designed for use with small sample size microarray gene-expression data. Based on an asymptotic proof, the test multiplicatively adjusts the standard error for a test of differences between two classes of observations by pi/2 due to the use of medians rather than means as measures of central tendency. The adjustment is upwardly biased at small sample sizes, however, producing fewer than expected small P-values with a consequent loss of statistical power. We present an empirical correction to the adjustment factor which removes the bias and produces theoretically expected P-values when distributional assumptions are met. Our adjusted LPE measure should prove useful to ongoing methodological studies designed to improve the LPE's; performance for microarray and proteomics applications and for future work for other high-throughput biotechnologies. AVAILABILITY: The software is implemented in the R language and can be downloaded from the Bioconductor project website (http://www.bioconductor.org).

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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