An Introduction to Machine Learning Approaches for Biomedical Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) approaches are a collection of algorithms that attempt to extract patterns from data and to associate such patterns with discrete classes of samples in the data-e.g., given a series of features describing persons, a ML model predicts whether a person is diseased or healthy, or given features of animals, it predicts weather an animal is treated or control, or whether molecules have the potential to interact or not, etc. ML approaches can also find such patterns in an agnostic manner, i.e., without having information about the classes. Respectively, those methods are referred to as supervised and unsupervised ML. A third type of ML is reinforcement learning, which attempts to find a sequence of actions that contribute to achieving a specific goal. All of these methods are becoming increasingly popular in biomedical research in quite diverse areas including drug design, stratification of patients, medical images analysis, molecular interactions, prediction of therapy outcomes and many more. We describe several supervised and unsupervised ML techniques, and illustrate a series of prototypical examples using state-of-the-art computational approaches. Given the complexity of reinforcement learning, it is not discussed in detail here, instead, interested readers are referred to excellent reviews on that topic. We focus on concepts rather than procedures, as our goal is to attract the attention of researchers in biomedicine toward the plethora of powerful ML methods and their potential to leverage basic and applied research programs.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it