Assessing the reproducibility of machine-learning-based biomarker discovery in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feature selection and machine learning algorithms can be used to analyze Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) data and identify potential disease biomarkers. Reproducibility of identified biomarkers is critical for them to be useful for clinical research; however, genotyping platforms and selection criteria for individuals to be genotyped affect the reproducibility of identified biomarkers. To assess biomarkers reproducibility, we collected five SNPs datasets from the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and explored several data integration strategies. While combining datasets can lead to a reduction in classification accuracy, it has the potential to improve the reproducibility of potential biomarkers. We evaluated the agreement among different strategies in terms of the SNPs that were identified as potential Parkinson's disease (PD) biomarkers. Our findings indicate that, on average, 93% of the SNPs identified in a single dataset fail to be identified in other datasets. However, through dataset integration, this lack of replication is reduced to 62%. We discovered fifty SNPs that were identified at least twice, which could potentially serve as novel PD biomarkers. These SNPs are indirectly linked to PD in the literature but have not been directly associated with PD before. These findings open up new potential avenues of investigation.
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 | 0.077 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".