Identifying Individual-Cancer-Related Genes by Rebalancing the Training Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of individual-cancer-related genes typically is an imbalanced classification issue. The number of known cancer-related genes is far less than the number of all unknown genes, which makes it very hard to detect novel predictions from such imbalanced training samples. A regular machine learning method can either only detect genes related to all cancers or add clinical knowledge to circumvent this issue. In this study, we introduce a training sample rebalancing strategy to overcome this issue by using a two-step logistic regression and a random resampling method. The two-step logistic regression is to select a set of genes that related to all cancers. While the random resampling method is performed to further classify those genes associated with individual cancers. The issue of imbalanced classification is circumvented by randomly adding positive instances related to other cancers at first, and then excluding those unrelated predictions according to the overall performance at the following step. Numerical experiments show that the proposed resampling method is able to identify cancer-related genes even when the number of known genes related to it is small. The final predictions for all individual cancers achieve AUC values around 0.93 by using the leave-one-out cross validation method, which is very promising, compared with existing methods.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".