Analysis of half a billion datapoints across ten machine-learning algorithms identify key determinants of insulin gene transcription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning (ML)-workflows enable unprejudiced/robust evaluation of complex datasets. Here, we analyzed over 490,000,000 data points to compare 10 different ML-workflows in a large (N=11,652) training dataset of human pancreatic single-cell (sc-)transcriptomes to identify genes associated with the presence or absence of insulin transcript(s). Prediction accuracy/sensitivity of each ML-workflow were tested in a separate validation dataset (N=2,913). Ensemble ML-workflows, in particular Random Forest ML-algorithm delivered high predictive power (AUC=0.83) and sensitivity (0.98), compared to other algorithms. The transcripts identified through these analyses also demonstrated significant correlation with insulin in bulk RNA-seq data from human islets. The top-10 features, (including IAPP, ADCYAP1, LDHA and SST ) common to the three Ensemble ML-workflows were significantly dysregulated in scRNA-seq datasets from Ire-1α β-/- mice that demonstrate dedifferentiation of pancreatic β-cells in a model of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and in pancreatic single cells from individuals with type 2 Diabetes (T2D). Our findings provide direct comparison of ML-workflows in big data analyses, identify key determinants of insulin transcription and provide workflows for future analyses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".