Classifying high-dimensional phenotypes with ensemble learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classification is a fundamental task in biology used to assign members to a class. While linear discriminant functions have long been effective, advances in phenotypic data collection are yielding increasingly high-dimensional datasets with more classes, unequal class covariances, and non-linear distributions. Numerous studies have deployed machine learning techniques to classify such distributions, but they are often restricted to a particular organism, a limited set of algorithms, and/or a specific classification task. In addition, the utility of ensemble learning or the strategic combination of models has not been fully explored.We performed a meta-analysis of 33 algorithms across 20 datasets containing over 20,000 high-dimensional shape phenotypes using an ensemble learning framework. Both binary (e.g., sex, environment) and multi-class (e.g., species, genotype, population) classification tasks were considered. The ensemble workflow contains functions for preprocessing, training individual learners and ensembles, and model evaluation. We evaluated algorithm performance within and among datasets. Furthermore, we quantified the extent to which various dataset and phenotypic properties impact performance.We found that discriminant analysis variants and neural networks were the most accurate base learners on average. However, their performance varied substantially between datasets. Ensemble models achieved the highest performance on average, both within and among datasets, increasing average accuracy by up to 3% over the top base learner. Higher class R2 values, mean class shape distances, and between- vs. within-class variances were positively associated with performance, whereas higher class covariance distances were negatively associated. Class balance and total sample size were not predictive.Learning-based classification is a complex task driven by many hyperparameters. We demonstrate that selecting and optimizing an algorithm based on the results of another study is a flawed strategy. Ensemble models instead offer a flexible approach that is data agnostic and exceptionally accurate. By assessing the impact of various dataset and phenotypic properties on classification performance, we also offer potential explanations for variation in performance. Researchers interested in maximizing performance stand to benefit from the simplicity and effectiveness of our approach made accessible via the R package pheble.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".