A New Approach for Feature Selection from Microarray Data Based on Mutual Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutual information (MI) is a powerful concept for correlation-centric applications. It has been used for feature selection from microarray gene expression data in many works. One of the merits of MI is that, unlike many other heuristic methods, it is based on a mature theoretic foundation. When applied to microarray data, however, it faces some challenges. First, due to the large number of features (i.e., genes) present in microarray data, the true distributions for the expression values of some genes may be distorted by noise. Second, evaluating inter-group mutual information requires estimating multi-variate distributions, which is quite difficult if not impossible. To address these problems, in this paper, we propose a new MI-based feature selection approach for microarray data. Our approach relies on two strategies: one is relevance boosting, which requires a desirable feature to show substantially additional relevance with class labeling beyond the already selected features, the other is feature interaction enhancing, which probabilistically compensates for feature interaction missing from simple aggregation-based evaluation. We justify our approach from both theoretical perspective and experimental results. We use a synthetic dataset to show the statistical significance of the proposed strategies, and real-life datasets to show the improved performance of our approach over the 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".