SUBSTRA: Supervised Bayesian Patient Stratification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Patient stratification methods are key to the vision of precision medicine. Here, we consider transcriptional data to segment the patient population into subsets relevant to a given phenotype. Whereas most existing patient stratification methods focus either on predictive performance or interpretable features, we developed a method striking a balance between these two important goals. RESULTS: We introduce a Bayesian method called SUBSTRA that uses regularized biclustering to identify patient subtypes and interpretable subtype-specific transcript clusters. The method iteratively re-weights feature importance to optimize phenotype prediction performance by producing more phenotype-relevant patient subtypes. We investigate the performance of SUBSTRA in finding relevant features using simulated data and successfully benchmark it against state-of-the-art unsupervised stratification methods and supervised alternatives. Moreover, SUBSTRA achieves predictive performance competitive with the supervised benchmark methods and provides interpretable transcriptional features in diverse biological settings, such as drug response prediction, cancer diagnosis, or kidney transplant rejection. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The R code of SUBSTRA is available at https://github.com/sahandk/SUBSTRA. 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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".