Dataset Information

Recommendations for Increasing the Transparency of Analysis of Preexisting Data Sets.

ABSTRACT: Secondary data analysis, or the analysis of preexisting data, provides a powerful tool for the resourceful psychological scientist. Never has this been more true than now, when technological advances enable both sharing data across labs and continents and mining large sources of preexisting data. However, secondary data analysis is easily overlooked as a key domain for developing new open-science practices or improving analytic methods for robust data analysis. In this article, we provide researchers with the knowledge necessary to incorporate secondary data analysis into their methodological toolbox. We explain that secondary data analysis can be used for either exploratory or confirmatory work, and can be either correlational or experimental, and we highlight the advantages and disadvantages of this type of research. We describe how transparency-enhancing practices can improve and alter interpretations of results from secondary data analysis and discuss approaches that can be used to improve the robustness of reported results. We close by suggesting ways in which scientific subfields and institutions could address and improve the use of secondary data analysis.

SUBMITTER: Weston SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7079740 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Recommendations for Increasing the Transparency of Analysis of Preexisting Data Sets.

Weston Sara J SJ Ritchie Stuart J SJ Rohrer Julia M JM Przybylski Andrew K AK

Advances in methods and practices in psychological science 20190611 3

Secondary data analysis, or the analysis of preexisting data, provides a powerful tool for the resourceful psychological scientist. Never has this been more true than now, when technological advances enable both sharing data across labs and continents and mining large sources of preexisting data. However, secondary data analysis is easily overlooked as a key domain for developing new open-science practices or improving analytic methods for robust data analysis. In this article, we provide resear ...[more]

PMID: 32190814

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinical artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have the potential to improve clinical care, but fair, generalizable algorithms depend on the clinical data on which they are trained and tested.ObjectiveTo assess whether data sets used for training diagnostic AI algorithms addressing skin disease are adequately described and to identify potential sources of bias in these data sets.Data sourcesIn this scoping review, PubMed was used to search for peer-reviewed research articles published between January 1, 2015, and November 1, 2020, with the following paired search terms: deep learning and dermatology, artificial intelligence and dermatology, deep learning and dermatologist, and artificial intelligence and dermatologist.Study selectionStudies that developed or tested an existing deep learning algorithm for triage, diagnosis, or monitoring using clinical or dermoscopic images of skin disease were selected, and the articles were independently reviewed by 2 investigators to verify that they met selection criteria.Consensus processData set audit criteria were determined by consensus of all authors after reviewing existing literature to highlight data set transparency and sources of bias.ResultsA total of 70 unique studies were included. Among these studies, 1 065 291 images were used to develop or test AI algorithms, of which only 257 372 (24.2%) were publicly available. Only 14 studies (20.0%) included descriptions of patient ethnicity or race in at least 1 data set used. Only 7 studies (10.0%) included any information about skin tone in at least 1 data set used. Thirty-six of the 56 studies developing new AI algorithms for cutaneous malignant neoplasms (64.3%) met the gold standard criteria for disease labeling. Public data sets were cited more often than private data sets, suggesting that public data sets contribute more to new development and benchmarks.Conclusions and relevanceThis scoping review identified 3 issues in data sets that are used to develop and test clinical AI algorithms for skin disease that should be addressed before clinical translation: (1) sparsity of data set characterization and lack of transparency, (2) nonstandard and unverified disease labels, and (3) inability to fully assess patient diversity used for algorithm development and testing.

Project description:Machine learning methods are widely used within the medical field. However, the reliability and efficacy of these models is difficult to assess, making it difficult for researchers to identify which machine-learning model to apply to their dataset. We assessed whether variance calculations of model metrics (e.g., AUROC, Sensitivity, Specificity) through bootstrap simulation and SHapely Additive exPlanations (SHAP) could increase model transparency and improve model selection. Data from the England National Health Services Heart Disease Prediction Cohort was used. After comparison of model metrics for XGBoost, Random Forest, Artificial Neural Network, and Adaptive Boosting, XGBoost was used as the machine-learning model of choice in this study. Boost-strap simulation (N = 10,000) was used to empirically derive the distribution of model metrics and covariate Gain statistics. SHapely Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to provide explanations to machine-learning output and simulation to evaluate the variance of model accuracy metrics. For the XGBoost modeling method, we observed (through 10,000 completed simulations) that the AUROC ranged from 0.771 to 0.947, a difference of 0.176, the balanced accuracy ranged from 0.688 to 0.894, a 0.205 difference, the sensitivity ranged from 0.632 to 0.939, a 0.307 difference, and the specificity ranged from 0.595 to 0.944, a 0.394 difference. Among 10,000 simulations completed, we observed that the gain for Angina ranged from 0.225 to 0.456, a difference of 0.231, for Cholesterol ranged from 0.148 to 0.326, a difference of 0.178, for maximum heart rate (MaxHR) ranged from 0.081 to 0.200, a range of 0.119, and for Age ranged from 0.059 to 0.157, difference of 0.098. Use of simulations to empirically evaluate the variability of model metrics and explanatory algorithms to observe if covariates match the literature are necessary for increased transparency, reliability, and utility of machine learning methods. These variance statistics, combined with model accuracy statistics can help researchers identify the best model for a given dataset.

Project description:Gene set enrichment analysis and overrepresentation analyses are commonly used methods to determine the biological processes affected by a differential expression experiment. This approach requires biologically relevant gene sets, which are currently curated manually, limiting their availability and accuracy in many organisms without extensively curated resources. New feature learning approaches can now be paired with existing data collections to directly extract functional gene sets from big data.Here we introduce a method to identify perturbed processes. In contrast with methods that use curated gene sets, this approach uses signatures extracted from public expression data. We first extract expression signatures from public data using ADAGE, a neural network-based feature extraction approach. We next identify signatures that are differentially active under a given treatment. Our results demonstrate that these signatures represent biological processes that are perturbed by the experiment. Because these signatures are directly learned from data without supervision, they can identify uncurated or novel biological processes. We implemented ADAGE signature analysis for the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa. For the convenience of different user groups, we implemented both an R package (ADAGEpath) and a web server ( http://adage.greenelab.com ) to run these analyses. Both are open-source to allow easy expansion to other organisms or signature generation methods. We applied ADAGE signature analysis to an example dataset in which wild-type and ?anr mutant cells were grown as biofilms on the Cystic Fibrosis genotype bronchial epithelial cells. We mapped active signatures in the dataset to KEGG pathways and compared with pathways identified using GSEA. The two approaches generally return consistent results; however, ADAGE signature analysis also identified a signature that revealed the molecularly supported link between the MexT regulon and Anr.We designed ADAGE signature analysis to perform gene set analysis using data-defined functional gene signatures. This approach addresses an important gap for biologists studying non-traditional model organisms and those without extensive curated resources available. We built both an R package and web server to provide ADAGE signature analysis to the community.

Dataset Information

Recommendations for Increasing the Transparency of Analysis of Preexisting Data Sets.

Publications

Recommendations for Increasing the Transparency of Analysis of Preexisting Data Sets.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets