MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155675633 · doi:10.1186/s13073-021-00864-4

Finding associations in a heterogeneous setting: statistical test for aberration enrichment

2021· article· en· W3155675633 on OpenAlexafffund
Aziz M. Mezlini, Sudeshna Das, Anna Goldenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchVector InstituteHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsStatistical powerStatistical hypothesis testingMultiple comparisons problemHuman geneticsBiomarkerComputational biologyBioinformaticsMedicineComputer scienceStatisticsGeneBiologyGeneticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most two-group statistical tests find broad patterns such as overall shifts in mean, median, or variance. These tests may not have enough power to detect effects in a small subset of samples, e.g., a drug that works well only on a few patients. We developed a novel statistical test targeting such effects relevant for clinical trials, biomarker discovery, feature selection, etc. We focused on finding meaningful associations in complex genetic diseases in gene expression, miRNA expression, and DNA methylation. Our test outperforms traditional statistical tests in simulated and experimental data and detects potentially disease-relevant genes with heterogeneous effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.167
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.167
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome MedicineSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207