Dataset Information

An approachable, flexible and practical machine learning workshop for biologists.

ABSTRACT:

Summary

The increasing prevalence and importance of machine learning in biological research have created a need for machine learning training resources tailored towards biological researchers. However, existing resources are often inaccessible, infeasible or inappropriate for biologists because they require significant computational and mathematical knowledge, demand an unrealistic time-investment or teach skills primarily for computational researchers. We created the Machine Learning for Biologists (ML4Bio) workshop, a short, intensive workshop that empowers biological researchers to comprehend machine learning applications and pursue machine learning collaborations in their own research. The ML4Bio workshop focuses on classification and was designed around three principles: (i) emphasizing preparedness over fluency or expertise, (ii) necessitating minimal coding and mathematical background and (iii) requiring low time investment. It incorporates active learning methods and custom open-source software that allows participants to explore machine learning workflows. After multiple sessions to improve workshop design, we performed a study on three workshop sessions. Despite some confusion around identifying subtle methodological flaws in machine learning workflows, participants generally reported that the workshop met their goals, provided them with valuable skills and knowledge and greatly increased their beliefs that they could engage in research that uses machine learning. ML4Bio is an educational tool for biological researchers, and its creation and evaluation provide valuable insight into tailoring educational resources for active researchers in different domains.

Availability and implementation

Workshop materials are available at https://github.com/carpentries-incubator/ml4bio-workshop and the ml4bio software is available at https://github.com/gitter-lab/ml4bio.

Supplementary information

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

SUBMITTER: Magnano CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9236579 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFollowing visible successes on a wide range of predictive tasks, machine learning techniques are attracting substantial interest from medical researchers and clinicians. We address the need for capacity development in this area by providing a conceptual introduction to machine learning alongside a practical guide to developing and evaluating predictive algorithms using freely-available open source software and public domain data.MethodsWe demonstrate the use of machine learning techniques by developing three predictive models for cancer diagnosis using descriptions of nuclei sampled from breast masses. These algorithms include regularized General Linear Model regression (GLMs), Support Vector Machines (SVMs) with a radial basis function kernel, and single-layer Artificial Neural Networks. The publicly-available dataset describing the breast mass samples (N=683) was randomly split into evaluation (n=456) and validation (n=227) samples. We trained algorithms on data from the evaluation sample before they were used to predict the diagnostic outcome in the validation dataset. We compared the predictions made on the validation datasets with the real-world diagnostic decisions to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the three models. We explored the use of averaging and voting ensembles to improve predictive performance. We provide a step-by-step guide to developing algorithms using the open-source R statistical programming environment.ResultsThe trained algorithms were able to classify cell nuclei with high accuracy (.94 -.96), sensitivity (.97 -.99), and specificity (.85 -.94). Maximum accuracy (.96) and area under the curve (.97) was achieved using the SVM algorithm. Prediction performance increased marginally (accuracy =.97, sensitivity =.99, specificity =.95) when algorithms were arranged into a voting ensemble.ConclusionsWe use a straightforward example to demonstrate the theory and practice of machine learning for clinicians and medical researchers. The principals which we demonstrate here can be readily applied to other complex tasks including natural language processing and image recognition.

Project description:BackgroundUnstructured text, including medical records, patient feedback, and social media comments, can be a rich source of data for clinical research. Natural language processing (NLP) describes a set of techniques used to convert passages of written text into interpretable datasets that can be analysed by statistical and machine learning (ML) models. The purpose of this paper is to provide a practical introduction to contemporary techniques for the analysis of text-data, using freely-available software.MethodsWe performed three NLP experiments using publicly-available data obtained from medicine review websites. First, we conducted lexicon-based sentiment analysis on open-text patient reviews of four drugs: Levothyroxine, Viagra, Oseltamivir and Apixaban. Next, we used unsupervised ML (latent Dirichlet allocation, LDA) to identify similar drugs in the dataset, based solely on their reviews. Finally, we developed three supervised ML algorithms to predict whether a drug review was associated with a positive or negative rating. These algorithms were: a regularised logistic regression, a support vector machine (SVM), and an artificial neural network (ANN). We compared the performance of these algorithms in terms of classification accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity.ResultsLevothyroxine and Viagra were reviewed with a higher proportion of positive sentiments than Oseltamivir and Apixaban. One of the three LDA clusters clearly represented drugs used to treat mental health problems. A common theme suggested by this cluster was drugs taking weeks or months to work. Another cluster clearly represented drugs used as contraceptives. Supervised machine learning algorithms predicted positive or negative drug ratings with classification accuracies ranging from 0.664, 95% CI [0.608, 0.716] for the regularised regression to 0.720, 95% CI [0.664,0.776] for the SVM.ConclusionsIn this paper, we present a conceptual overview of common techniques used to analyse large volumes of text, and provide reproducible code that can be readily applied to other research studies using open-source software.