MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393304410 · doi:10.31274/td-20240329-47

Advances in random forest tuning and improvements in false discovery rate controlling procedures via test-specific covariate adjustments

2022· dissertation· en· W4393304410 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hyeongseon Jeon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPlant Sciences Institute, Iowa State UniversityNational Institute of Food and AgricultureGenome AlbertaGenome Canada
KeywordsCovariateFalse discovery rateMultiple comparisons problemNull hypothesisType I and type II errorsNull (SQL)StatisticsRandom forestNull modelStatistical hypothesis testingSample size determinationData miningMathematicsVariance (accounting)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each chapter of this dissertation is devoted to one of three topics. The first two are novel false discovery rate (FDR) controlling methods in different situations, and the third deals with a new tuning parameter selection approach for the random forest method in regression problems. The primary research of this dissertation is to develop methods for controlling FDR while conducting multiple hypothesis tests with gene expression data. The first topic of this dissertation is a gene-specific covariate-based FDR-controlling method. We propose gene length as a potential gene-specific covariate. We develop a method based on covariate-specific conditional null probability for promising hypotheses with low p-values. We prove that the method controls positive FDR (pFDR) and provide an equivalent statement producing the method's rejection rule. Simulations demonstrate our method controls over pFDR, and the suggested method is better than existing methods in terms of true positive rate and summary statistics for the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Using data provided by Dr. Lim, we observe that our method rejects more null hypotheses at most target levels than existing methods. Another topic of this dissertation is developing an FDR-controlling method for circumstances where data are obtained from the pilot and main studies. We assume each study has unique properties such as sample size and error variance. Our method's rejection rule permits a higher p-value rejection threshold for the main study when the p-value for the pilot study is relatively low. This relationship enables us to evaluate fewer rejection rules than a competing method, resulting in more inference power. Our simulation study demonstrates our approach for combining results from two studies is superior to existing methods and controls FDR to a predetermined level. The number of rejected null hypotheses in the data analysis was greater than that of competing methods. The last topic of the dissertation is a unique tuning approach for random forest (RF) regression. We propose a case-specific tuning strategy for selecting the RF tuning parameter values of mtry and nodesize. We provide an example showing case-specific tuning parameters can be useful by demonstrating that the best choice for tuning parameter values varies across the predictor space. The tuning algorithm is then outlined mathematically. In a simulation study, our approach outperforms the conventional algorithms implemented in various R packages to minimize mean squared prediction error. Moreover, this method outperforms competing methods for the majority of the datasets we examined.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classification→French-language works237,207→