Perencanaan keuangan keluarga David pada reksadana Seruni pasar uang, asuransi Manulife, tabungan tahapan Bank Central Asia, deposito Bank NISP, deposito Bank LIPPO dan deposito Bank Internasional Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imaging genetics has attracted significant interests in recent studies. Traditional work has focused on mass-univariate statistical approaches that identify important single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with quantitative traits (QTs) of brain structure or function. More recently, to address the problem of multiple comparison and weak detection, multivariate analysis methods such as the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) are often used to select the most relevant SNPs associated with QTs. However, one problem of Lasso, as well as many other feature selection methods for imaging genetics, is that some useful prior information, e.g., the hierarchical structure among SNPs, are rarely used for designing a more powerful model. In this paper, we propose to identify the associations between candidate genetic features (i.e., SNPs) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived measures using a tree-guided sparse learning (TGSL) method. The advantage of our method is that it explicitly models the complex hierarchical structure among the SNPs in the objective function for feature selection. Specifically, motivated by the biological knowledge, the hierarchical structures involving gene groups and linkage disequilibrium (LD) blocks as well as individual SNPs are imposed as a tree-guided regularization term in our TGSL model. Experimental studies on simulation data and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) data show that our method not only achieves better predictions than competing methods on the MRI-derived measures of AD-related region of interests (ROIs) (i.e., hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, and precuneus), but also identifies sparse SNP patterns at the block level to better guide the biological interpretation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".