Adventures in Multi-Omics I: Combining heterogeneous datasets via relationships matrices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Private and public breeding programs, as well as companies and universities, have developed different genomics technologies which have resulted in the generation of unprecedented amounts of sequence data, which bring new challenges in terms of data management, query, and analysis. The magnitude and complexity of these datasets bring new challenges but also an opportunity to use the data available as a whole. Detailed phenotype data, combined with increasing amounts of genomic data, have an enormous potential to accelerate the identification of key traits to improve our understanding of quantitative genetics. Data harmonization enables cross-national and international comparative research, facilitating the extraction of new scientific knowledge. In this paper, we address the complex issue of combining high dimensional and unbalanced omics data. More specifically, we propose a covariance-based method for combining partial datasets in the genotype to phenotype spectrum. This method can be used to combine partially overlapping relationship/covariance matrices. Here, we show with applications that our approach might be advantageous to feature imputation based approaches; we demonstrate how this method can be used in genomic prediction using heterogenous marker data and also how to combine the data from multiple phenotypic experiments to make inferences about previously unobserved trait relationships. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to harmonize datasets to improve available information across gene-banks, data repositories or other data resources. Key message Several covariance matrices obtained from independent experiments can be combined as long as these matrices are partially overlapping. We demonstrate the usefulness of this methodology with applications in combining data from several partially linked genotypic and phenotypic experiments. Author contribution statement –DA: Conception or design of the work, statistics, R programs, simulations, drafting the article, and critical revision of the article. –JIS: R programs, graphs, drafting the article, critical revision of the article. –RK: Critical revision of the article.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".