BiXGBoost: a scalable, flexible boosting-based method for reconstructing gene regulatory networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Reconstructing gene regulatory networks (GRNs) based on gene expression profiles is still an enormous challenge in systems biology. Random forest-based methods have been proved a kind of efficient methods to evaluate the importance of gene regulations. Nevertheless, the accuracy of traditional methods can be further improved. With time-series gene expression data, exploiting inherent time information and high order time lag are promising strategies to improve the power and accuracy of GRNs inference. RESULTS: In this study, we propose a scalable, flexible approach called BiXGBoost to reconstruct GRNs. BiXGBoost is a bidirectional-based method by considering both candidate regulatory genes and target genes for a specific gene. Moreover, BiXGBoost utilizes time information efficiently and integrates XGBoost to evaluate the feature importance. Randomization and regularization are also applied in BiXGBoost to address the over-fitting problem. The results on DREAM4 and Escherichia coli datasets show the good performance of BiXGBoost on different scale of networks. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our Python implementation of BiXGBoost is available at https://github.com/zrq0123/BiXGBoost. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".