MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736294284 · doi:10.1002/gepi.22059

Adaptive testing for association between two random vectors in moderate to high dimensions

2017· article· en· W2736294284 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zhiyuan Xu, Gongjun Xu, Wei Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetic Epidemiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on AgingDoD Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUniversity of MinnesotaU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsKernel (algebra)Computer scienceComputerized adaptive testingHigh dimensionalMultivariate statisticsMathematicsAlgorithmData miningMachine learningStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing for association between two random vectors is a common and important task in many fields, however, existing tests, such as Escoufier's RV test, are suitable only for low-dimensional data, not for high-dimensional data. In moderate to high dimensions, it is necessary to consider sparse signals, which are often expected with only a few, but not many, variables associated with each other. We generalize the RV test to moderate-to-high dimensions. The key idea is to data adaptively weight each variable pair based on its empirical association. As the consequence, the proposed test is adaptive, alleviating the effects of noise accumulation in high-dimensional data, and thus maintaining the power for both dense and sparse alternative hypotheses. We show the connections between the proposed test with several existing tests, such as a generalized estimating equations-based adaptive test, multivariate kernel machine regression (KMR), and kernel distance methods. Furthermore, we modify the proposed adaptive test so that it can be powerful for nonlinear or nonmonotonic associations. We use both real data and simulated data to demonstrate the advantages and usefulness of the proposed new test. The new test is freely available in R package aSPC on CRAN at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/aSPC/index.html and https://github.com/jasonzyx/aSPC.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.197
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.197
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.329
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetic EpidemiologySame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207