Multi-omics integration—a comparison of unsupervised clustering methodologies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the recent developments in the field of multi-omics integration, the interest in factors such as data preprocessing, choice of the integration method and the number of different omics considered had increased. In this work, the impact of these factors is explored when solving the problem of sample classification, by comparing the performances of five unsupervised algorithms: Multiple Canonical Correlation Analysis, Multiple Co-Inertia Analysis, Multiple Factor Analysis, Joint and Individual Variation Explained and Similarity Network Fusion. These methods were applied to three real data sets taken from literature and several ad hoc simulated scenarios to discuss classification performance in different conditions of noise and signal strength across the data types. The impact of experimental design, feature selection and parameter training has been also evaluated to unravel important conditions that can affect the accuracy of the result.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it