MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multi-way clustering of microarray data using probabilistic sparse matrix factorization

2005· article· en· W2156336405 on OpenAlexafffund
Delbert Dueck, Quaid Morris, Brendan J. Frey

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer applications in the biosciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoMicrosoft
KeywordsCluster analysisProbabilistic logicComputer scienceData miningSparse matrixNon-negative matrix factorizationNoise (video)Hierarchical clusteringMatrix decompositionGenerative modelMatrix (chemical analysis)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceGenerative grammarEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: We address the problem of multi-way clustering of microarray data using a generative model. Our algorithm, probabilistic sparse matrix factorization (PSMF), is a probabilistic extension of a previous hard-decision algorithm for this problem. PSMF allows for varying levels of sensor noise in the data, uncertainty in the hidden prototypes used to explain the data and uncertainty as to the prototypes selected to explain each data vector. RESULTS: We present experimental results demonstrating that our method can better recover functionally-relevant clusterings in mRNA expression data than standard clustering techniques, including hierarchical agglomerative clustering, and we show that by computing probabilities instead of point estimates, our method avoids converging to poor solutions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations97
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer applications in the biosciencesSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207