MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3177915462 · doi:10.20381/ruor-26628

Bayesian Methods Under Unknown Prior Distributions with Applications to The Analysis of Gene Expression Data

2021· dissertation· en· W3177915462 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Abbas Rahal

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsBayesian probabilityComputational biologyGene expressionComputer scienceData miningBiologyGeneArtificial intelligenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The local false discovery rate (LFDR) is one of many existing statistical methods that analyze multiple hypothesis testing. As a Bayesian quantity, the LFDR is based on the prior probability of the null hypothesis and a mixture distribution of null and non-null hypothesis. In practice, the LFDR is unknown and needs to be estimated. The empirical Bayes approach can be used to estimate that mixture distribution. Empirical Bayes does not require complete information about the prior and hyper prior distributions as in hierarchical Bayes. When we do not have enough information at the prior level, and instead of placing a distribution at the hyper prior level in the hierarchical Bayes model, empirical Bayes estimates the prior parameters using the data via, often, the marginal distribution. In this research, we developed new Bayesian methods under unknown prior distribution. A set of adequate prior distributions maybe defined using Bayesian model checking by setting a threshold on the posterior predictive p-value, prior predictive p-value, calibrated p-value, Bayes factor, or integrated likelihood. We derive a set of adequate posterior distributions from that set. In order to obtain a single posterior distribution instead of a set of adequate posterior distributions, we used a blended distribution, which minimizes the relative entropy of a set of adequate prior (or posterior) distributions to a "benchmark" prior (or posterior) distribution. We present two approaches to generate a blended posterior distribution, namely, updating-before-blending and blending-before-updating. The blended posterior distribution can be used to estimate the LFDR by considering the nonlocal false discovery rate as a benchmark and the different LFDR estimators as an adequate set. The likelihood ratio can often be misleading in multiple testing, unless it is supplemented by adjusted p-values or posterior probabilities based on sufficiently strong prior distributions. In case of unknown prior distributions, they can be estimated by empirical Bayes methods or blended distributions. We propose a general framework for applying the laws of likelihood to problems involving multiple hypotheses by bringing together multiple statistical models. We have applied the proposed framework to data sets from genomics, COVID-19 and other data.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)→Same topicGene expression and cancer classification→French-language works237,207→