MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405942876 · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxae046

Testing for a difference in means of a single feature after clustering

2024· article· en· W4405942876 on OpenAlexafffund
Yiqun T. Chen, Lucy L. Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueBiostatistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCluster analysisType I and type II errorsFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceHierarchical clusteringData miningStatistical hypothesis testingAlgorithmWord error ratePattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many applications, it is critical to interpret and validate groups of observations obtained via clustering. A common interpretation and validation approach involves testing differences in feature means between observations in two estimated clusters. In this setting, classical hypothesis tests lead to an inflated Type I error rate. To overcome this problem, we propose a new test for the difference in means in a single feature between a pair of clusters obtained using hierarchical or k-means clustering. The test controls the selective Type I error rate in finite samples and can be efficiently computed. We further illustrate the validity and power of our proposal in simulation and demonstrate its use on single-cell RNA-sequencing data.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiostatisticsSame topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207