MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339239983 · doi:10.1038/ncomms11305

High-dimensional genomic data bias correction and data integration using MANCIE

2016· article· en· W2339239983 on OpenAlexaff
Chongzhi Zang, Tao Wang, Ke Deng, Bo Li, Shengen Shawn Hu, Qian Qin, Tengfei Xiao, Shihua Zhang, Clifford A. Meyer, Housheng Hansen He, Myles Brown, Jun S. Liu, Yang Xie, X. Shirley Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Human Genome Research InstituteLeukemia and Lymphoma Society
KeywordsComputational biologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-dimensional genomic data analysis is challenging due to noises and biases in high-throughput experiments. We present a computational method matrix analysis and normalization by concordant information enhancement (MANCIE) for bias correction and data integration of distinct genomic profiles on the same samples. MANCIE uses a Bayesian-supported principal component analysis-based approach to adjust the data so as to achieve better consistency between sample-wise distances in the different profiles. MANCIE can improve tissue-specific clustering in ENCODE data, prognostic prediction in Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium and The Cancer Genome Atlas data, copy number and expression agreement in Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia data, and has broad applications in cross-platform, high-dimensional data integration.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207