MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Feature Selection Methods for SNP Analysis

2019· article· en· W3006297573 on OpenAlexaff
Ch. V Anupama, Nisha Puthiyedth, R Neenu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionSNPSelection (genetic algorithm)Single-nucleotide polymorphismComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Curse of dimensionalitySNP genotypingTag SNPData miningGenotypingArtificial intelligenceComputational biologyPattern recognition (psychology)BiologyGeneticsGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) are considered as the most significant biomarkers with a wide range of applications, especially in the field of human genetics. The high cost of genotyping a large number of SNPs is one of the major challenge faced in SNP analysis. Evaluating the SNP data/high dimensional data and identify the most important or significant SNPs/features from the high-dimensional data, called feature selection (FS) and is one of the most focused areas of research in bioinformatics. Feature selection is an important process in many of the bioinformatics applications. This selection process can reduce the dimensionality of the dataset by removing irrelevant, redundant features and select the most informative features. In this article, we present a review of feature selection methods for SNP analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classification→French-language works237,207→