Quasi-Negative Binomial: Properties, Parametric Estimation, Regression Model and Application to RNA-SEQ Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Poisson and the Negative Binomial distributions are commonly used to model count data. The Poisson is characterized by the equality of mean and variance whereas the Negative Binomial has a variance larger than the mean and therefore both models are appropriate to model over-dispersed count data. Objectives: A new two-parameter probability distribution called the Quasi-Negative Binomial Distribution (QNBD) is being studied in this paper, generalizing the well-known negative binomial distribution. This model turns out to be quite flexible for analyzing count data. Our main objectives are to estimate the parameters of the proposed distribution and to discuss its applicability to genetics data. As an application, we demonstrate that the QNBD regression representation is utilized to model genomics data sets. Results: The new distribution is shown to provide a good fit with respect to the “Akaike Information Criterion”, AIC, considered a measure of model goodness of fit. The proposed distribution may serve as a viable alternative to other distributions available in the literature for modeling count data exhibiting overdispersion, arising in various fields of scientific investigation such as genomics and biomedicine.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".