BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Andreas Bender

Andreas Bender appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Machine LearningArtificial IntelligenceBiomoleculesComputationmath.STMethodologyStatistics Theory

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Avoiding C-hacking when evaluating survival distribution predictions with discrimination measures

In this paper we consider how to evaluate survival distribution predictions with measures of discrimination. This is a non-trivial problem as discrimination measures are the most commonly used in survival analysis and yet there is no clear method to derive a risk prediction from a distribution prediction. We survey methods proposed in literature and software and consider their respective advantages and disadvantages. Whilst distributions are frequently evaluated by discrimination measures, we find that the method for doing so is rarely described in the literature and often leads to unfair comparisons. We find that the most robust method of reducing a distribution to a risk is to sum over the predicted cumulative hazard. We recommend that machine learning survival analysis software implements clear transformations between distribution and risk predictions in order to allow more transparent and accessible model evaluation. The code used in the final experiment is available at https://github.com/RaphaelS1/distribution_discrimination.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

DeepPAMM: Deep Piecewise Exponential Additive Mixed Models for Complex Hazard Structures in Survival Analysis

Survival analysis (SA) is an active field of research that is concerned with time-to-event outcomes and is prevalent in many domains, particularly biomedical applications. Despite its importance, SA remains challenging due to small-scale data sets and complex outcome distributions, concealed by truncation and censoring processes. The piecewise exponential additive mixed model (PAMM) is a model class addressing many of these challenges, yet PAMMs are not applicable in high-dimensional feature settings or in the case of unstructured or multimodal data. We unify existing approaches by proposing DeepPAMM, a versatile deep learning framework that is well-founded from a statistical point of view, yet with enough flexibility for modeling complex hazard structures. We illustrate that DeepPAMM is competitive with other machine learning approaches with respect to predictive performance while maintaining interpretability through benchmark experiments and an extended case study.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Factorized Structured Regression for Large-Scale Varying Coefficient Models

Recommender Systems (RS) pervade many aspects of our everyday digital life. Proposed to work at scale, state-of-the-art RS allow the modeling of thousands of interactions and facilitate highly individualized recommendations. Conceptually, many RS can be viewed as instances of statistical regression models that incorporate complex feature effects and potentially non-Gaussian outcomes. Such structured regression models, including time-aware varying coefficients models, are, however, limited in their applicability to categorical effects and inclusion of a large number of interactions. Here, we propose Factorized Structured Regression (FaStR) for scalable varying coefficient models. FaStR overcomes limitations of general regression models for large-scale data by combining structured additive regression and factorization approaches in a neural network-based model implementation. This fusion provides a scalable framework for the estimation of statistical models in previously infeasible data settings. Empirical results confirm that the estimation of varying coefficients of our approach is on par with state-of-the-art regression techniques, while scaling notably better and also being competitive with other time-aware RS in terms of prediction performance. We illustrate FaStR's performance and interpretability on a large-scale behavioral study with smartphone user data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Semi-Structured Deep Piecewise Exponential Models

We propose a versatile framework for survival analysis that combines advanced concepts from statistics with deep learning. The presented framework is based on piecewise exponential models and thereby supports various survival tasks, such as competing risks and multi-state modeling, and further allows for estimation of time-varying effects and time-varying features. To also include multiple data sources and higher-order interaction effects into the model, we embed the model class in a neural network and thereby enable the simultaneous estimation of both inherently interpretable structured regression inputs as well as deep neural network components which can potentially process additional unstructured data sources. A proof of concept is provided by using the framework to predict Alzheimer's disease progression based on tabular and 3D point cloud data and applying it to synthetic data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Target Fishing: A Single-Label or Multi-Label Problem?

According to Cobanoglu et al and Murphy, it is now widely acknowledged that the single target paradigm (one protein or target, one disease, one drug) that has been the dominant premise in drug development in the recent past is untenable. More often than not, a drug-like compound (ligand) can be promiscuous - that is, it can interact with more than one target protein. In recent years, in in silico target prediction methods the promiscuity issue has been approached computationally in different ways. In this study we confine attention to the so-called ligand-based target prediction machine learning approaches, commonly referred to as target-fishing. With a few exceptions, the target-fishing approaches that are currently ubiquitous in cheminformatics literature can be essentially viewed as single-label multi-classification schemes; these approaches inherently bank on the single target paradigm assumption that a ligand can home in on one specific target. In order to address the ligand promiscuity issue, one might be able to cast target-fishing as a multi-label multi-class classification problem. For illustrative and comparison purposes, single-label and multi-label Naive Bayes classification models (denoted here by SMM and MMM, respectively) for target-fishing were implemented. The models were constructed and tested on 65,587 compounds and 308 targets retrieved from the ChEMBL17 database. SMM and MMM performed differently: for 16,344 test compounds, the MMM model returned recall and precision values of 0.8058 and 0.6622, respectively; the corresponding recall and precision values yielded by the SMM model were 0.7805 and 0.7596, respectively. However, at a significance level of 0.05 and one degree of freedom McNemar test performed on the target prediction results returned by SMM and MMM for the 16,344 test ligands gave a chi-squared value of 15.656, in favour of the MMM approach.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access