Nearest-neighbor Projected-Distance Regression (NPDR) for detecting network interactions with adjustments for multiple tests and confounding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Machine learning feature selection methods are needed to detect complex interaction-network effects in complicated modeling scenarios in high-dimensional data, such as GWAS, gene expression, eQTL and structural/functional neuroimage studies for case-control or continuous outcomes. In addition, many machine learning methods have limited ability to address the issues of controlling false discoveries and adjusting for covariates. To address these challenges, we develop a new feature selection technique called Nearest-neighbor Projected-Distance Regression (NPDR) that calculates the importance of each predictor using generalized linear model regression of distances between nearest-neighbor pairs projected onto the predictor dimension. NPDR captures the underlying interaction structure of data using nearest-neighbors in high dimensions, handles both dichotomous and continuous outcomes and predictor data types, statistically corrects for covariates, and permits statistical inference and penalized regression. We use realistic simulations with interactions and other effects to show that NPDR has better precision-recall than standard Relief-based feature selection and random forest importance, with the additional benefit of covariate adjustment and multiple testing correction. Using RNA-Seq data from a study of major depressive disorder (MDD), we show that NPDR with covariate adjustment removes spurious associations due to confounding. We apply NPDR to eQTL data to identify potentially interacting variants that regulate transcripts associated with MDD and demonstrate NPDR's utility for GWAS and continuous outcomes. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Available at: https://insilico.github.io/npdr/. 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".