Detecting potential labeling errors in microarrays by data perturbation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Classification is widely used in medical applications. However, the quality of the classifier depends critically on the accurate labeling of the training data. But for many medical applications, labeling a sample or grading a biopsy can be subjective. Existing studies confirm this phenomenon and show that even a very small number of mislabeled samples could deeply degrade the performance of the obtained classifier, particularly when the sample size is small. The problem we address in this paper is to develop a method for automatically detecting samples that are possibly mislabeled. RESULTS: We propose two algorithms, a classification-stability algorithm and a leave-one-out-error-sensitivity algorithm for detecting possibly mislabeled samples. For both algorithms, the key structure is the computation of the leave-one-out perturbation matrix. The classification-stability algorithm is based on measuring the stability of the label of a sample with respect to label changes of other samples and the version of this algorithm based on the support vector machine appears to be quite accurate for three real datasets. The suspect list produced by the version is of high quality. Furthermore, when human intervention is not available, the correction heuristic appears to be beneficial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".