Evaluating predictive performance of network biomarkers with network structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Network is a powerful structure which reveals valuable characteristics of the underlying data. However, previous work on evaluating the predictive performance of network-based biomarkers does not take nodal connectedness into account. We argue that it is necessary to maximize the benefit from the network structure by employing appropriate techniques. To address this, we aim to learn a weight coefficient for each node in the network from the quantitative measure such as gene expression data. The weight coefficients are computed from an optimization problem which minimizes the total weighted difference between nodes in a network structure; this can be expressed in terms of graph Laplacian. After obtaining the coefficient vector for the network markers, we can then compute the corresponding network predictor. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method by conducting experiments using published breast cancer biomarkers with three patient cohorts. Network markers are first grouped based on GO terms related to cancer hallmarks. We compare the predictive performance of each network marker group across gene expression datasets. We also evaluate the network predictor against the average method for feature aggregation. The reported results show that the predictive performance of network markers is generally not consistent across patient cohorts.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".