BioDiscViz : a visualization support and consensus signature selector for BioDiscML results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning (ML) algorithms are powerful tools to find complex patterns and biomarker signatures where conventional statistical methods may fail to identify them. While the ML field made significant progress, state of the art methodologies to build efficient and non-overfitting models are not always applied in the litterature. To this purpose, automatic programs, such as BioDiscML, have been designed to identify biomarker signatures and correlated features while escaping overfitting using multiple evaluation strategies, such as cross validation, bootstrapping and repeated holdout. To further improve BioDiscML and reach a broader audience, better visualization support and flexibility in choosing the best models and signatures are needed. Thus, to provide researchers with an easily accessible and usable tool for in depth investigation of the results from BioDiscML outputs, we developed a visual interaction tool called BioDiscViz. This tool provides summaries, tables and graphics, in the form of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots, heatmaps and boxplots for the best model and the correlated features. Furthermore, this tool also provides visual support to extract a consensus signature from BioDiscML models using a combination of filters. BioDiscViz will be a great visual support for research implying machine learning, hence new opportunities in this field by opening it to a broader community.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.018 |
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".