A Computational Approach to Identification of Candidate Biomarkers in High-Dimensional Molecular Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex high-dimensional datasets that are challenging to analyze are frequently produced through '-omics' profiling. Typically, these datasets contain more genomic features than samples, limiting the use of multivariable statistical and machine learning-based approaches to analysis. Therefore, effective alternative approaches are urgently needed to identify features-of-interest in '-omics' data. In this study, we present the molecular feature selection tool, a novel, ensemble-based, feature selection application for identifying candidate biomarkers in '-omics' data. As proof-of-principle, we applied the molecular feature selection tool to identify a small set of immune-related genes as potential biomarkers of three prostate adenocarcinoma subtypes. Furthermore, we tested the selected genes in a model to classify the three subtypes and compared the results to models built using all genes and all differentially expressed genes. Genes identified with the molecular feature selection tool performed better than the other models in this study in all comparison metrics: accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score using a significantly smaller set of genes. In addition, we developed a simple graphical user interface for the molecular feature selection tool, which is available for free download. This user-friendly interface is a valuable tool for the identification of potential biomarkers in gene expression datasets and is an asset for biomarker discovery studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".