MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392972987 · doi:10.1101/2024.03.18.585541

Machine learning methods applied to classify complex diseases using genomic data

2024· preprint· en· W4392972987 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Magdalena Arnal, Giorgio Bini, Anastasia Krithara, George Paliouras, Gian Gaetano Tartaglia

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningComputational biologyData scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Complex diseases pose challenges in disease prediction due to their multifactorial and polygenic nature. In this work, we explored the prediction of two complex diseases, multiple sclerosis (MS) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD), using machine learning (ML) methods and genomic data from UK Biobank. Different ML methods were applied, including logistic regressions (LR), gradient boosting decision trees (GB), extremely randomized trees (ET), random forest (RF), feedforward networks (FFN), and convolutional neural networks (CNN). The primary goal of this research was to investigate the variability of ML models in classifying complex diseases based on genomic risk. LR was the most robust method across folds and diseases, whereas deep learning methods (FFN and CNN) exhibited high variability. When comparing the performance of polygenic risk scores (PRS) with ML methods, PRS consistently performed at an average level. However, PRS still offers several practical advantages over ML methods. Despite implementing feature selection techniques to exclude non-informative and correlated predictors, the performance of ML models did not improve significantly, underscoring the ability of ML methods to achieve optimal performance even in the presence of correlated features due to linkage disequilibrium. Upon applying explainability tools to extract information about the genomic features contributing most to the classification task, the results confirmed the polygenicity of MS. The prevalence of HLA gene annotations among the top genomic features on chromosome 6 aligns with their significance in the context of MS. Overall, the highest-prioritized genomic variants were identified as expression or splicing quantitative trait loci (eQTL or sQTL) located in non-coding regions within or near genes associated with the immune response and MS. In summary, this research offers deeper insights into how ML models discern genomic patterns related to complex diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207