Cancer Characteristic Gene Selection via Sample Learning Based on Deep Sparse Filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of characteristic genes associated with specific biological processes of different cancers could provide insights into the underlying cancer genetics and cancer prognostic assessment. It is of critical importance to select such characteristic genes effectively. In this paper, a novel unsupervised characteristic gene selection method based on sample learning and sparse filtering, Sample Learning based on Deep Sparse Filtering (SLDSF), is proposed. With sample learning, the proposed SLDSF can better represent the gene expression level by the transformed sample space. Most unsupervised characteristic gene selection methods did not consider deep structures, while a multilayer structure may learn more meaningful representations than a single layer, therefore deep sparse filtering is investigated here to implement sample learning in the proposed SLDSF. Experimental studies on several microarray and RNA-Seq datasets demonstrate that the proposed SLDSF is more effective than several representative characteristic gene selection methods (e.g., RGNMF, GNMF, RPCA and PMD) for selecting cancer characteristic genes.
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".