MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Classification of Schizophrenia Patients According to DNA Methylation Data Based on Meta-learning

2022· article· en· W4317383738 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Li, Haichun Liu, Lanzhen Li, Tao Chen, Qinting Zhang, Haozhe Li, Changchun Pan

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE Conference on Telecommunications, Optics and Computer Science (TOCS) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingComputer scienceFeature selectionArtificial intelligenceMachine learningSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Feature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)DNA methylationPruningGeneralizationFeature extractionArtificial neural networkMathematicsGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question for understanding the correlation between genetic expression and diagnosis of schizophrenia patients has always been challenging. The DNA methylation can provide an effective approach to solve the problem. However, limited by the size of datasets and the high dimensionality, conventional feature selection and pattern recognition methods cause a severe overfitting phenomenon. In this paper, the DNA methylation data are analyzed to filter out the most important gene points for classification. To alleviate the negative overfitting impacts the optimization-based meta-learning i.e., the MAML algorithm, is developed to solve the multi-classification and feature selection problems. The proposed method combining MAML with attention-based mechanism is capable of conducting feature selection with fast generalization and quick adaptation for small samples. The major work lies in that the proposed model is pretrained with TCGA which can be tailored to our circumstance with priori information. To test the efficiency of the proposed algorithm, the DNA methylation data are used including homicidal schizophrenics and violent schizophrenics from some authoritative institute. Our method achieves a recognition accuracy of 91.89% (homicidal schizophrenics, schizophrenics without violent behaviors, and normal people) and 67.96% (schizophrenics with violent behaviors, schizophrenics without violent behaviors, and normal people}) respectively, which is a great improvement compared to the best-known results based on the traditional method with 82.52% and 63.76%. Furthermore, 1000 significant feature gene points are selected from more than 400 thousand feature points.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE Conference on Telecommunications, Optics and Computer Science (TOCS)Same topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207