The impact of distributional assumptions in gene-set and pathway analysis: how far can it go wrong?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Gene-set analysis (GSA) has been one of the standard procedures for exploring potential biological functions when a group of differentially expressed genes have been derived. The development of its methodology has been an active research topic in recent decades. Many GSA methods, when newly proposed, rely on simulation studies to evaluate their performance with a common implicit assumption that the multivariate expression values are normally distributed. The validity of this assumption has been disputed in several studies but no systematic analysis has been carried out to assess the influence of this distributional assumption. Our goal in this study is not to propose a new GSA method but to first examine if the multi-dimensional gene expression data in gene sets follow a multivariate normal distribution (MVN). Six statistical methods in three categories of MVN tests were considered and applied to a total of twenty-two datasets of expression data from studies involving tumor and normal tissues, with ten signaling pathways chosen as the gene sets. Second, we evaluated the influence of non-normality on the performance of current GSA tools, including parametric and non-parametric methods. Specifically, the scenario of mixture distributions representing the case of different tumor subtypes was considered. Our first finding suggests that the MVN assumption should be carefully dealt with. It does not hold true in many applications tested here. The second investigation of the GSA tools demonstrates that the non-normality does affect the performance of these GSA methods, especially when subtypes exist. We conclude that the use of the inherent multivariate normality assumption should be assessed with care in evaluating new GSA tools, since this MVN assumption cannot be guaranteed and this assumption affects strongly the performance of GSA methods. If a newly proposed GSA method is to be evaluated, we recommend the incorporation of multivariate non-normal distributions or sampling from large databases if available.
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 | 0.139 | 0.413 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".