ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Transfer Learning in Multiple Hypothesis Testing.
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this investigation, a synthesis of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Bayesian inference is presented, leading to a novel approach to the problem of Multiple Hypothesis Testing (MHT). Diverging from traditional paradigms, this study introduces a sequence-based uncalibrated Bayes factor approach to test many hypotheses using the same family of sampling parametric models. A two-step methodology is employed: initially, a learning phase is conducted utilizing simulated datasets encompassing a wide spectrum of null and alternative hypotheses, followed by a transfer phase applying this fitted model to real-world experimental sequences. The outcome is a CNN model capable of navigating the complex domain of MHT with improved precision over traditional methods, also demonstrating robustness under varying conditions, including the number of true nulls and dependencies between tests. Although indications of empirical evaluations are presented and show that the methodology will prove useful, more work is required to provide a full evaluation from a theoretical perspective. The potential of this innovative approach is further illustrated within the critical domain of genomics. Although formal proof of the consistency of the model remains elusive due to the inherent complexity of the algorithms, this paper also provides some theoretical insights and advocates for continued exploration of this methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.