MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245411843 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.4398705

Predictive modeling of therapy response in multiple sclerosis using gene expression data

2006· article· en· W4245411843 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Mostafavi, Sergio E. Baranzini, Jorge Oksernberg, Parvin Mousavi

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionComputer scienceBottleneckArtificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningData setPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcription profiling studies reveal important insights in regards to molecular events that manifest in phenotypic outcomes such as response to drug therapy. Construction of computational models that accurately predict therapy response is only possible when precise data measurements, robust feature/gene selection, and advanced computational modeling methods are combined with stringent statistical validation and large scale verification of results. Due to the large number of gene expression measurements in transcriptional profiling studies, feature selection represents a bottleneck when constructing computational models. The degree of compromise between selection of the optimal feature set and computational efficiency results in many choices for candidate gene sets which leads to a wide range of classification accuracies. Furthermore, constructing a classification model using a larger-than-necessary gene set along with small number of samples may cause over-fitting the data, resulting in highly optimistic classification accuracies. In this study we present OSeMA, a fast, robust and accurate gene selection-classification framework which results in construction of classification models that are highly predictive of the rIFNB therapy response in multiple sclerosis patients. We assess the performance of OSeMA on held out test data. Additionally, we extensively evaluate OSeMA by comparing it to an exhaustive combinatorial gene selection-classification approach

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207