METAbolomics data Balancing with Over-sampling Algorithms (META-BOA): an online resource for addressing class imbalance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Class imbalance, or unequal sample sizes between classes, is an increasing concern in machine learning for metabolomic and lipidomic data mining, which can result in overfitting for the over-represented class. Numerous methods have been developed for handling class imbalance, but they are not readily accessible to users with limited computational experience. Moreover, there is no resource that enables users to easily evaluate the effect of different over-sampling algorithms. RESULTS: METAbolomics data Balancing with Over-sampling Algorithms (META-BOA) is a web-based application that enables users to select between four different methods for class balancing, followed by data visualization and classification of the sample to observe the augmentation effects. META-BOA outputs a newly balanced dataset, generating additional samples in the minority class, according to the user's choice of Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE), Borderline-SMOTE (BSMOTE), Adaptive Synthetic (ADASYN) or Random Over-Sampling Examples (ROSE). To present the effect of over-sampling on the data META-BOA further displays both principal component analysis and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding visualization of data pre- and post-over-sampling. Random forest classification is utilized to compare sample classification in both the original and balanced datasets, enabling users to select the most appropriate method for their further analyses. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: META-BOA is available at https://complimet.ca/meta-boa. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.041 |
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".