MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2793660201 · doi:10.1101/276345

Imputing missing distances in molecular phylogenetics

2018· preprint· en· W2793660201 on OpenAlexafffund
Xuhua Xia

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMissing dataDistance matrixAlgorithmMathematicsExpectation–maximization algorithmLeast-squares function approximationImputation (statistics)Distance matrices in phylogenyFunction (biology)Computer scienceData miningMaximum likelihoodStatisticsCombinatoricsBiologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Missing data are frequently encountered in molecular phylogenetics and need to be imputed. For a distance matrix with missing distances, the least-squares approach is often used for imputing the missing values. Here I develop a method, similar to the expectation-maximization algorithm, to impute multiple missing distance in a distance matrix. I show that, for inferring the best tree and missing distances, the minimum evolution criterion is not as desirable as the least-squares criterion. I also discuss the problem involving cases where the missing values cannot be uniquely determined, e.g., when a missing distance involve two sister taxa. The new method has the advantage over the existing one in that it does not assume a molecular clock. I have implemented the function in DAMBE software which is freely available at available at http://dambe.bio.uottawa.ca

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→