MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153925032 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v7n1p100

Optimal Algorithm for Metabolomics Classification and Feature Selection varies by Dataset

2014· article· en· W2153925032 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionRandom forestComputer scienceMetabolomicsLinear discriminant analysisArtificial intelligenceRobustness (evolution)Data miningMachine learningIdentification (biology)Partial least squares regressionSupport vector machinePattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metabolomics, the systematic identification and quantification of all metabolites in a biological system, is increasingly applied towards identification of biomarkers for disease diagnosis, prognosis and risk prediction. Applications of metabolomics extend across the health spectrum including Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, and trauma. Despite the continued interest in metabolomics there are numerous techniques for analyzing metabolomics datasets with the intent to classify group membership (e.g. Control or Treated). These include Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis, Support Vector Machines, Random Forest, Regularized Generalized Linear Models, and Prediction Analysis for Microarrays. Each classification algorithm is dependent upon different assumptions and can potentially lead to alternate conclusions. This project seeks to conduct an in depth comparison of algorithm performance on both simulated and real datasets to determine which algorithms perform best given alternate dataset structures. Three simulated datasets were generated to validate algorithm performance and mimic 'real' metabolomics data: (Han et al., 2011) independent null dataset (no correlation, no discriminatory variables), (Davis, Schiller, Eurich, & Sawyer, 2012) correlated null (no discriminating variables), (Guan et al., 2009) correlated discriminatory. This comparison is also applied to 3 open-access datasets including two Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and one Mass Spectrometry (MS) dataset. Performance was evaluated based on the Robustness-Performance-Trade-off (RPT) incorporating a balance between model classification accuracy and feature selection stability. We also provide a free, open-source R Bioconductor package (OmicsMarkeR) that conducts the analyses herein. The proposed work provides an important advancement in metabolomics analysis and helps alleviate the confusion of potentially paradoxical analyses thereby leading to improved exploration of disease states and identification of clinically important biomarkers.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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