A Bayesian Group Sparse Multi-Task Regression Model for Imaging Genomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in technology for brain imaging and high-throughput genotyping have motivated studies examining the influence of genetic variation on brain structure. In this setting, high-dimensional regression for multi-SNP association analysis is challenging as the brain imaging phenotypes are multivariate and there is a desire to incorporate a biological group structure among SNPs based on their belonging genes. Wang et al. (Bioinformatics, 2012) have recently developed an approach for simultaneous estimation and SNP selection based on penalized regression with regularization based on a novel group l_{2,1}-norm penalty, which encourages sparsity at the gene level. A problem with the proposed approach is that it only provides a point estimate. We solve this problem by developing a corresponding Bayesian formulation based on a three-level hierarchical model that allows for full posterior inference using Gibbs sampling. For the selection of tuning parameters, we consider techniques based on: (i) a fully Bayes approach with hyperpriors, (ii) empirical Bayes with implementation based on a Monte Carlo EM algorithm, and (iii) cross-validation (CV). When the number of SNPs is greater than the number of observations we find that both the fully Bayes and empirical Bayes approaches overestimate the tuning parameters, leading to overshrinkage of regression coefficients. To understand this problem we derive an approximation to the marginal likelihood and investigate its shape under different settings. Our investigation sheds some light on the problem and suggests the use of cross-validation or its approximation with WAIC (Watanabe, 2010) when the number of SNPs is relatively large. Properties of our Gibbs-WAIC approach are investigated using a simulation study and we apply the methodology to a large dataset collected as part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".