TiMEG: an integrative statistical method for partially missing multi-omics data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-omics data integration is widely used to understand the genetic architecture of disease. In multi-omics association analysis, data collected on multiple omics for the same set of individuals are immensely important for biomarker identification. But when the sample size of such data is limited, the presence of partially missing individual-level observations poses a major challenge in data integration. More often, genotype data are available for all individuals under study but gene expression and/or methylation information are missing for different subsets of those individuals. Here, we develop a statistical model TiMEG, for the identification of disease-associated biomarkers in a case-control paradigm by integrating the above-mentioned data types, especially, in presence of missing omics data. Based on a likelihood approach, TiMEG exploits the inter-relationship among multiple omics data to capture weaker signals, that remain unidentified in single-omic analysis or common imputation-based methods. Its application on a real tuberous sclerosis dataset identified functionally relevant genes in the disease pathway.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".