Comprehensive analysis of multi-omics vaccine response data using MOFA and Stabl algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction FluPRINT is a multi-omics dataset that measures donors’ protein expression and cell counts across various assays. Donors were also assigned a binary value (0 or 1), being labeled as high responders if they had a fold change ≥4 of the antibody titer for hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) from day 0 to day 28, and low responders otherwise (0). In this project, we used the MOFA and Stabl algorithms to analyze FluPRINT, estimate the population structure from the data, and identify the most important features for predicting response to the vaccine. Methods The preprocessing of the dataset included removing repeat features, scaling by assay, and removing outliers. Since Stabl does not directly address missing values, features with high amounts of missing values were removed and the remaining were ignored. Results MOFA identified the top feature in structure extraction as IL neg 2 CD4 pos CD45Ra neg pSTAT5. MOFA explains well the variance of the data while also choosing features that have good significance, as illustrated by their significant p-values (p < 0.05). Stabl found the top feature for explaining the outcome to be CD33 − CD3 + CD4 + CD25hiCD127low CD161+ CD45RA + Tregs, which matched the top result of previously published analysis. MOFA’s features achieved an AUROC of 0.616 (95% CI of 0.426–0.806), and Stabl’s achieved an AUROC of 0.634 (95% CI of 0.432–0.823). Discussion Our research addresses a key knowledge gap: understanding how these fundamentally different analytical approaches perform when analyzing the same complex dataset. Our exploration evaluates their respective strengths, limitations, and biological insights and provides guidance on using MOFA and Stabl to find the best predictive cell subsets and features for understanding large immunological multi-omics data. The code for this project can be found at https://github.com/aanya21gupta/fluprint .
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".