Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Clément Chatelain 0002

dblp:c/ClementChatelain2 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0000-0001-7265-6410ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Mathematical optimization · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Data mining · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Data mining › dimensionality reduction
feature selection
0.412019
kernelPSI: a Post-Selection Inference Framework for Nonlinear Variable Selection · ICML 2019
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization
nonlinear optimization
0.412019
kernelPSI: a Post-Selection Inference Framework for Nonlinear Variable Selection · ICML 2019
Mathematical optimization › selective inference
post-selection inference
0.412019
kernelPSI: a Post-Selection Inference Framework for Nonlinear Variable Selection · ICML 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

stepwise selection · 0.8post-selection inference · 0.8kernel methods · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 kernelPSI: a Post-Selection Inference Framework for Nonlinear Variable Selection
abstract
Model selection is an essential task for many applications in scientific discovery. The most common approaches rely on univariate linear measures of association between each feature and the outcome. Such classical selection procedures fail to take into account nonlinear effects and interactions between features. Kernel-based selection procedures have been proposed as a solution. However, current strategies for kernel selection fail to measure the significance of a joint model constructed through the combination of the basis kernels. In the present work, we exploit recent advances in post-selection inference to propose a valid statistical test for the association of a joint model of the selected kernels with the outcome. The kernels are selected via a step-wise procedure which we model as a succession of quadratic constraints in the outcome variable.
Lotfi Slim, Clément Chatelain 0002, Chloé-Agathe Azencott, Jean-Philippe Vert
ICML2
2018 Performance of epistasis detection methods in semi-simulated GWAS
abstract
BACKGROUND: Part of the missing heritability in Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) is expected to be explained by interactions between genetic variants, also called epistasis. Various statistical methods have been developed to detect epistasis in case-control GWAS. These methods face major statistical challenges due to the number of tests required, the complexity of the Linkage Disequilibrium (LD) structure, and the lack of consensus regarding the definition of epistasis. Their limited impact in terms of uncovering new biological knowledge might be explained in part by the limited amount of experimental data available to validate their statistical performances in a realistic GWAS context. In this paper, we introduce a simulation pipeline for generating real scale GWAS data, including epistasis and realistic LD structure. We evaluate five exhaustive bivariate interaction methods, fastepi, GBOOST, SHEsisEpi, DSS, and IndOR. Two hundred thirty four different disease scenarios are considered in extensive simulations. We report the performances of each method in terms of false positive rate control, power, area under the ROC curve (AUC), and computation time using a GPU. Finally we compare the result of each methods on a real GWAS of type 2 diabetes from the Welcome Trust Case Control Consortium. RESULTS: SNPs and 15,000 samples in a couple of hours using a GPU. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that computation time is no longer a limiting factor for performing an exhaustive search of epistasis in large GWAS. For this task, using DSS on SNP pairs with limited LD seems to be a good strategy to achieve the best statistical performance. A combination approach using both DSS and GBOOST is supported by the simulation results and the analysis of the WTCCC dataset demonstrated that this approach can detect distinct genes in epistasis. Finally, weak epistasis between common variants will be detectable with existing methods when GWAS of a few tens of thousands cases and controls are available.
Clément Chatelain 0002, Guillermo Durand, Vincent Thuillier, Franck Augé
BMC Bioinform.1