Statistical and Machine-Learning Analyses in Nutritional Genomics Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutritional compounds may have an influence on different OMICs levels, including genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and metagenomics. The integration of OMICs data is challenging but may provide new knowledge to explain the mechanisms involved in the metabolism of nutrients and diseases. Traditional statistical analyses play an important role in description and data association; however, these statistical procedures are not sufficiently enough powered to interpret the large integrated multiple OMICs (multi-OMICS) datasets. Machine learning (ML) approaches can play a major role in the interpretation of multi-OMICS in nutrition research. Specifically, ML can be used for data mining, sample clustering, and classification to produce predictive models and algorithms for integration of multi-OMICs in response to dietary intake. The objective of this review was to investigate the strategies used for the analysis of multi-OMICs data in nutrition studies. Sixteen recent studies aimed to understand the association between dietary intake and multi-OMICs data are summarized. Multivariate analysis in multi-OMICs nutrition studies is used more commonly for analyses. Overall, as nutrition research incorporated multi-OMICs data, the use of novel approaches of analysis such as ML needs to complement the traditional statistical analyses to fully explain the impact of nutrition on health and disease.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".