A comparison of methods for classifying clinical samples based on proteomics data : a case study for statistical and machine learning approaches

The discovery of protein variation is an important strategy in disease diagnosis within the biological sciences. The current benchmark for elucidating information from multiple biological variables is the so called “omics” disciplines of the biological sciences. Such variability is uncovered by implementation of multivariable data mining techniques which come under two primary categories, machine learning strategies and statistical based approaches. Typically proteomic studies can produce hundreds or thousands of variables, p, per observation, n, depending on the analytical platform or method employed to generate the data. Many classification methods are limited by an n≪p constraint, and as such, require pre-treatment to reduce the dimensionality prior to classification. Recently machine learning techniques have gained popularity in the field for their ability to successfully classify unknown samples. One limitation of such methods is the lack of a functional model allowing meaningful interpretation of results in terms of the features used for classification. This is a problem that might be solved using a statistical model-based approach where not only is the importance of the individual protein explicit, they are combined into a readily interpretable classification rule without relying on a black box approach. Here we incorporate statistical dimension reduction techniques Partial Least Squares (PLS) and Principal Components Analysis (PCA) followed by both statistical and machine learning classification methods, and compared them to a popular machine learning technique, Support Vector Machines (SVM). Both PLS and SVM demonstrate strong utility for proteomic classification problems.

Australian higher education evaluation through assurance of learning

A collaborative research project conducted by five Australian universities inquired into the philosophy and motivation for Assurance of Learning (AoL) as a process of education evaluation. Associate Deans Teaching and Learning representing Business schools from twenty-five universities across Australia participated in telephone interviews. Data was analysed using NVIVO9. Results indicated that articulated rationale for AoL was both ensuring that students had acquired the attributes and skills the universities claimed they had, and the philosophy of continuous improvement. AoL was motivated both by ritualistic objectives to satisfy accreditation requirements and virtuous agendas for quality improvement. Closing-the-loop was emphasised, but was mostly wishful thinking for next steps beyond data collection and reporting. AoL was conceptualised as one element within the larger context of quality review, but there was no evidence of comprehensive frameworks or strategic plans.