The impact of methodological choices when developing predictive models using urinary metabolite data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The continuous evolution of metabolomics over the past two decades has stimulated the search for metabolic biomarkers of many diseases. Metabolomic data measured from urinary samples can provide rich information of the biological events triggered by organ rejection in pediatric kidney transplant recipients. With additional validation, metabolic markers can be used to build clinically useful diagnostic tools. However, there are many methodological steps ranging from data processing to modeling that can influence the performance of the resulting metabolomic classifiers. In this study we focus on the comparison of various classification methods that can handle the complex structure of metabolomic data, including regularized classifiers, partial least squares discriminant analysis, and nonlinear classification models. We also examine the effectiveness of a physiological normalization technique widely used in the clinical and biochemical literature but not extensively analyzed and compared in urine metabolomic studies. While the main objective of this work is to interrogate metabolomic data of pediatric kidney transplant recipients to improve the diagnosis of T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR), we also analyze three independent datasets from other disease conditions to investigate the generalizability of our findings.
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 | 0.248 | 0.415 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".