Analyzing biomarker discovery: Estimating the reproducibility of biomarker sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many researchers try to understand a biological condition by identifying biomarkers. This is typically done using univariate hypothesis testing over a labeled dataset, declaring a feature to be a biomarker if there is a significant statistical difference between its values for the subjects with different outcomes. However, such sets of proposed biomarkers are often not reproducible - subsequent studies often fail to identify the same sets. Indeed, there is often only a very small overlap between the biomarkers proposed in pairs of related studies that explore the same phenotypes over the same distribution of subjects. This paper first defines the Reproducibility Score for a labeled dataset as a measure (taking values between 0 and 1) of the reproducibility of the results produced by a specified fixed biomarker discovery process for a given distribution of subjects. We then provide ways to reliably estimate this score by defining algorithms that produce an over-bound and an under-bound for this score for a given dataset and biomarker discovery process, for the case of univariate hypothesis testing on dichotomous groups. We confirm that these approximations are meaningful by providing empirical results on a large number of datasets and show that these predictions match known reproducibility results. To encourage others to apply this technique to analyze their biomarker sets, we have also created a publicly available website, https://biomarker.shinyapps.io/BiomarkerReprod/, that produces these Reproducibility Score approximations for any given dataset (with continuous or discrete features and binary class labels).
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 | 0.118 | 0.386 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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; 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".