MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953345044 · doi:10.1177/0962280216660128

Principal component of explained variance: An efficient and optimal data dimension reduction framework for association studies

2016· article· en· W2953345044 on OpenAlexafffund
Maxime Turgeon, Karim Oualkacha, Antonio Ciampi, Hanane Miftah, Golsa Dehghan, Brent W. Zanke, Andréa Lessa Benedet, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Celia M.T. Greenwood, Aurélie Labbe

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDimensionality reductionPrincipal component analysisCovariateDimension (graph theory)Context (archaeology)Computer scienceVariance (accounting)Component (thermodynamics)Variance reductionData miningMathematicsMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genomics era has led to an increase in the dimensionality of data collected in the investigation of biological questions. In this context, dimension-reduction techniques can be used to summarise high-dimensional signals into low-dimensional ones, to further test for association with one or more covariates of interest. This paper revisits one such approach, previously known as principal component of heritability and renamed here as principal component of explained variance (PCEV). As its name suggests, the PCEV seeks a linear combination of outcomes in an optimal manner, by maximising the proportion of variance explained by one or several covariates of interest. By construction, this method optimises power; however, due to its computational complexity, it has unfortunately received little attention in the past. Here, we propose a general analytical PCEV framework that builds on the assets of the original method, i.e. conceptually simple and free of tuning parameters. Moreover, our framework extends the range of applications of the original procedure by providing a computationally simple strategy for high-dimensional outcomes, along with exact and asymptotic testing procedures that drastically reduce its computational cost. We investigate the merits of the PCEV using an extensive set of simulations. Furthermore, the use of the PCEV approach is illustrated using three examples taken from the fields of epigenetics and brain imaging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.236
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical ResearchSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207