Conditional canonical correlation estimation based on covariates with random forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Investigating the relationships between two sets of variables helps to understand their interactions and can be done with canonical correlation analysis (CCA). However, the correlation between the two sets can sometimes depend on a third set of covariates, often subject-related ones such as age, gender or other clinical measures. In this case, applying CCA to the whole population is not optimal and methods to estimate conditional CCA, given the covariates, can be useful. RESULTS: We propose a new method called Random Forest with Canonical Correlation Analysis (RFCCA) to estimate the conditional canonical correlations between two sets of variables given subject-related covariates. The individual trees in the forest are built with a splitting rule specifically designed to partition the data to maximize the canonical correlation heterogeneity between child nodes. We also propose a significance test to detect the global effect of the covariates on the relationship between two sets of variables. The performance of the proposed method and the global significance test is evaluated through simulation studies that show it provides accurate canonical correlation estimations and well-controlled Type-1 error. We also show an application of the proposed method with EEG data. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: RFCCA is implemented in a freely available R package on CRAN (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RFCCA). 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 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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".