MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402396437 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2024.1336891

BLESS: bagged logistic regression for biomarker identification

2024· article· en· W4402396437 on OpenAlexafffund
Kyle Gardiner, Xuekui Zhang, Xing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiMichael Smith Health Research BCNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsLogistic regressionIdentification (biology)BiomarkerRegressionStatisticsComputer scienceComputational biologyBiologyMathematicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-wise approach in genome-wide association studies is focused on examining the marginal association between each SNP with the outcome separately and applying multiple testing adjustments to the resulting p -values to reduce false positives. However, the approach suffers a lack of power in identifying biomarkers. We design an ensemble machine learning approach to aggregate results from logistic regression models based on multiple subsamples, which helps to identify biomarkers from high-dimensional genomic data. We use different methods to analyze a genome-wide association study from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. The SNP-wise approach does not identify any significant signal, while our novel approach provides a list of ranked SNPs associated with the cognitive functions of interests.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207