MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235818404 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv535

Group and sparse group partial least square approaches applied in genomics context

2015· article· en· W2235818404 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Benoît Liquet, Pierre Lafaye de Micheaux, Boris P. Hejblum, Rodolphe Thiébaut

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Multivariate statisticsComputational biologyRelevance (law)Computer scienceGenomicsSNPMultivariate analysisOmicsData miningBiologyBioinformaticsMachine learningGeneGenomeGeneticsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: The association between two blocks of 'omics' data brings challenging issues in computational biology due to their size and complexity. Here, we focus on a class of multivariate statistical methods called partial least square (PLS). Sparse version of PLS (sPLS) operates integration of two datasets while simultaneously selecting the contributing variables. However, these methods do not take into account the important structural or group effects due to the relationship between markers among biological pathways. Hence, considering the predefined groups of markers (e.g. genesets), this could improve the relevance and the efficacy of the PLS approach. RESULTS: We propose two PLS extensions called group PLS (gPLS) and sparse gPLS (sgPLS). Our algorithm enables to study the relationship between two different types of omics data (e.g. SNP and gene expression) or between an omics dataset and multivariate phenotypes (e.g. cytokine secretion). We demonstrate the good performance of gPLS and sgPLS compared with the sPLS in the context of grouped data. Then, these methods are compared through an HIV therapeutic vaccine trial. Our approaches provide parsimonious models to reveal the relationship between gene abundance and the immunological response to the vaccine. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The approach is implemented in a comprehensive R package called sgPLS available on the CRAN. CONTACT: b.liquet@uq.edu.au SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations57
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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