Spaced Out Data No More: Genomic Harmonization Meets Machine Learning in Murine Livers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract NASA has employed high-throughput molecular assays to identify sub-cellular changes impacting human physiology during spaceflight. Machine learning (ML) methods hold the promise to improve our ability to identify important signals within highly dimensional molecular data. However, the inherent limitation of study subject numbers within a spaceflight mission minimizes the utility of ML approaches. To overcome the sample power limitations, data from multiple spaceflight missions must be aggregated while appropriately addressing intra- and inter-study variabilities. Here we describe an approach to log transform, scale and normalize data from six heterogeneous, mouse liver derived transcriptomics datasets (ntotal=137) which enabled ML-methods to classify spaceflown vs. ground control animals (AUC ≥ 0.87) while mitigating the variability from mission-of-origin. Concordance was found between liver-specific biological processes identified from harmonized ML-based analysis and study-by-study classical omics analysis. This work demonstrates the feasibility of applying ML methods on integrated, heterogeneous datasets of small sample size.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".