Logicome Profiler: Exhaustive detection of statistically significant logic relationships from comparative omics data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logic relationship analysis is a data mining method that comprehensively detects item triplets that satisfy logic relationships from a binary matrix dataset, such as an ortholog table in comparative genomics. Thanks to recent technological advancements, many binary matrix datasets are now being produced in genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, metagenomics, and many other fields for comparative purposes. However, regardless of presumed interpretability and importance of logic relationships, existing data mining methods are not based on the framework of statistical hypothesis testing. That means, the type-1 and type-2 error rates are neither controlled nor estimated. Here, we developed Logicome Profiler, which exhaustively detects statistically significant triplet logic relationships from a binary matrix dataset (Logicome means ome of logics). To test all item triplets in a dataset while avoiding false positives, Logicome Profiler adjusts a significance level by the Bonferroni or Benjamini-Yekutieli method for the multiple testing correction. Its application to an ocean metagenomic dataset showed that Logicome Profiler can effectively detect statistically significant triplet logic relationships among environmental microbes and genes, which include those among urea transporter, urease, and photosynthesis-related genes. Beyond omics data analysis, Logicome Profiler is applicable to various binary matrix datasets in general for finding significant triplet logic relationships. The source code is available at https://github.com/fukunagatsu/LogicomeProfiler.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
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".