SuRF: A new method for sparse variable selection, with application in microbiome data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we present a new variable selection method for regression and classification purposes, particularly for microbiome analysis. Our method, called subsampling ranking forward selection (SuRF), is based on LASSO penalized regression, subsampling and forward-selection methods. SuRF offers major advantages over existing variable selection methods in terms of both sparsity of selected models and model inference. We provide an R package that can implement our method for generalized linear models. We apply our method to classification problems from microbiome data, using a novel agglomeration approach to deal with the special tree-like correlation structure of the variables. Existing methods arbitrarily choose a taxonomic level a priori before performing the analysis, whereas by combining SuRF with these aggregated variables, we are able to identify the key biomarkers at the appropriate taxonomic level, as suggested by the data. We present simulations in multiple sparse settings to demonstrate that our approach performs better than several other popularly used existing approaches in recovering the true variables. We apply SuRF to two microbiome datasets: one about prediction of pouchitis and another for identifying samples from two healthy individuals. We find that SuRF can provide a better or comparable prediction with other methods while controlling the false positive rate of variable selection.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".