Silver: Forging almost Gold Standard Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene set analysis has been widely used to gain insight from high-throughput expression studies. Although various tools and methods have been developed for gene set analysis, there is no consensus among researchers regarding best practice(s). Most often, evaluation studies have reported contradictory recommendations of which methods are superior. Therefore, an unbiased quantitative framework for evaluations of gene set analysis methods will be valuable. Such a framework requires gene expression datasets where enrichment status of gene sets is known a priori. In the absence of such gold standard datasets, artificial datasets are commonly used for evaluations of gene set analysis methods; however, they often rely on oversimplifying assumptions that make them biased in favor of or against a given method. In this paper, we propose a quantitative framework for evaluation of gene set analysis methods by synthesizing expression datasets using real data, without relying on oversimplifying or unrealistic assumptions, while preserving complex gene–gene correlations and retaining the distribution of expression values. The utility of the quantitative approach is shown by evaluating ten widely used gene set analysis methods. An implementation of the proposed method is publicly available. We suggest using Silver to evaluate existing and new gene set analysis methods. Evaluation using Silver provides a better understanding of current methods and can aid in the development of gene set analysis methods to achieve higher specificity without sacrificing sensitivity.
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 | 0.037 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".