SNP variable selection by generalized graph domination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-throughput sequencing technology has revolutionized both medical and biological research by generating exceedingly large numbers of genetic variants. The resulting datasets share a number of common characteristics that might lead to poor generalization capacity. Concerns include noise accumulated due to the large number of predictors, sparse information regarding the p≫n problem, and overfitting and model mis-identification resulting from spurious collinearity. Additionally, complex correlation patterns are present among variables. As a consequence, reliable variable selection techniques play a pivotal role in predictive analysis, generalization capability, and robustness in clustering, as well as interpretability of the derived models. METHODS AND FINDINGS: K-dominating set, a parameterized graph-theoretic generalization model, was used to model SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) data as a similarity network and searched for representative SNP variables. In particular, each SNP was represented as a vertex in the graph, (dis)similarity measures such as correlation coefficients or pairwise linkage disequilibrium were estimated to describe the relationship between each pair of SNPs; a pair of vertices are adjacent, i.e. joined by an edge, if the pairwise similarity measure exceeds a user-specified threshold. A minimum k-dominating set in the SNP graph was then made as the smallest subset such that every SNP that is excluded from the subset has at least k neighbors in the selected ones. The strength of k-dominating set selection in identifying independent variables, and in culling representative variables that are highly correlated with others, was demonstrated by a simulated dataset. The advantages of k-dominating set variable selection were also illustrated in two applications: pedigree reconstruction using SNP profiles of 1,372 Douglas-fir trees, and species delineation for 226 grasshopper mouse samples. A C++ source code that implements SNP-SELECT and uses Gurobi optimization solver for the k-dominating set variable selection is available (https://github.com/transgenomicsosu/SNP-SELECT).
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".