Comparing the performance of linear and nonlinear principal components in the context of high-dimensional genomic data integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear principal component analysis (PCA) is a widely used approach to reduce the dimension of gene or miRNA expression data sets. This method relies on the linearity assumption, which often fails to capture the patterns and relationships inherent in the data. Thus, a nonlinear approach such as kernel PCA might be optimal. We develop a copula-based simulation algorithm that takes into account the degree of dependence and nonlinearity observed in these data sets. Using this algorithm, we conduct an extensive simulation to compare the performance of linear and kernel principal component analysis methods towards data integration and death classification. We also compare these methods using a real data set with gene and miRNA expression of lung cancer patients. First few kernel principal components show poor performance compared to the linear principal components in this occasion. Reducing dimensions using linear PCA and a logistic regression model for classification seems to be adequate for this purpose. Integrating information from multiple data sets using either of these two approaches leads to an improved classification accuracy for the outcome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".