Protocol for assessing distances in pathway space for classifier feature sets from machine learning methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As genes tend to be co-regulated as gene modules, feature selection in machine learning (ML) on gene expression data can be challenged by the complexity of gene regulation. Here, we present a protocol for reconciling differences in classifier features identified using different ML approaches. We describe steps for loading the PathwaySpace R package, preparing input for analysis, and creating density plots of gene sets. We then detail procedures for testing whether apparently distinct feature sets are related in pathway space. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Ellrott et al. 1 • Protocol to test whether distinct gene sets reflect related biology • Steps for building a pathway space for graph- or network-based distance analysis • Instructions for calculating a pathway distance metric for any pair of gene sets • Guidance on exploring relationships between gene sets in pathway space Publisher’s note: Undertaking any experimental protocol requires adherence to local institutional guidelines for laboratory safety and ethics. As genes tend to be co-regulated as gene modules, feature selection in machine learning (ML) on gene expression data can be challenged by the complexity of gene regulation. Here, we present a protocol for reconciling differences in classifier features identified using different ML approaches. We describe steps for loading the PathwaySpace R package, preparing input for analysis, and creating density plots of gene sets. We then detail procedures for testing whether apparently distinct feature sets are related in pathway space.
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 | 0.011 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.137 | 0.060 |
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".