Dataset Information

Sparse Regression in Cancer Genomics: Comparing Variable Selection and Predictions in Real World Data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evaluation of gene interaction models in cancer genomics is challenging, as the true distribution is uncertain. Previous analyses have benchmarked models using synthetic data or databases of experimentally verified interactions - approaches which are susceptible to misrepresentation and incompleteness, respectively. The objectives of this analysis are to (1) provide a real-world data-driven approach for comparing performance of genomic model inference algorithms, (2) compare the performance of LASSO, elastic net, best-subset selection, L0L1 penalisation and L0L2 penalisation in real genomic data and (3) compare algorithmic preselection according to performance in our benchmark datasets to algorithmic selection by internal cross-validation.

Methods

Five large (n4000) genomic datasets were extracted from Gene Expression Omnibus. 'Gold-standard' regression models were trained on subspaces of these datasets ( n4000 , p=500 ). Penalised regression models were trained on small samples from these subspaces ( n∈{25,75,150},p=500 ) and validated against the gold-standard models. Variable selection performance and out-of-sample prediction were assessed. Penalty 'preselection' according to test performance in the other 4 datasets was compared to selection internal cross-validation error minimisation.

Results

L1L2 -penalisation achieved the highest cosine similarity between estimated coefficients and those of gold-standard models. L0L2 -penalised models explained the greatest proportion of variance in test responses, though performance was unreliable in low signal:noise conditions. L0L2 also attained the highest overall median variable selection F1 score. Penalty preselection significantly outperformed selection by internal cross-validation in each of 3 examined metrics.

Conclusions

This analysis explores a novel approach for comparisons of model selection approaches in real genomic data from 5 cancers. Our benchmarking datasets have been made publicly available for use in future research. Our findings support the use of L0L2 penalisation for structural selection and L1L2 penalisation for coefficient recovery in genomic data. Evaluation of learning algorithms according to observed test performance in external genomic datasets yields valuable insights into actual test performance, providing a data-driven complement to internal cross-validation in genomic regression tasks.

SUBMITTER: O'Shea RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8640984 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSocial-environmental data obtained from the US Census is an important resource for understanding health disparities, but rarely is the full dataset utilized for analysis. A barrier to incorporating the full data is a lack of solid recommendations for variable selection, with researchers often hand-selecting a few variables. Thus, we evaluated the ability of empirical machine learning approaches to identify social-environmental factors having a true association with a health outcome.MethodsWe compared several popular machine learning methods, including penalized regressions (e.g. lasso, elastic net), and tree ensemble methods. Via simulation, we assessed the methods' ability to identify census variables truly associated with binary and continuous outcomes while minimizing false positive results (10 true associations, 1000 total variables). We applied the most promising method to the full census data (p?=?14,663 variables) linked to prostate cancer registry data (n?=?76,186 cases) to identify social-environmental factors associated with advanced prostate cancer.ResultsIn simulations, we found that elastic net identified many true-positive variables, while lasso provided good control of false positives. Using a combined measure of accuracy, hierarchical clustering based on Spearman's correlation with sparse group lasso regression performed the best overall. Bayesian Adaptive Regression Trees outperformed other tree ensemble methods, but not the sparse group lasso. In the full dataset, the sparse group lasso successfully identified a subset of variables, three of which replicated earlier findings.ConclusionsThis analysis demonstrated the potential of empirical machine learning approaches to identify a small subset of census variables having a true association with the outcome, and that replicate across empiric methods. Sparse clustered regression models performed best, as they identified many true positive variables while controlling false positive discoveries.

Project description:Linkage of medical databases, including insurer claims and electronic health records (EHRs), is increasingly common. However, few studies have investigated the behavior and output of linkage software. To determine how linkage quality is affected by different algorithms, blocking variables, methods for string matching and weight determination, and decision rules, we compared the performance of 4 nonproprietary linkage software packages linking patient identifiers from noninteroperable inpatient and outpatient EHRs. We linked datasets using first and last name, gender, and date of birth (DOB). We evaluated DOB and year of birth (YOB) as blocking variables and used exact and inexact matching methods. We compared the weights assigned to record pairs and evaluated how matching weights corresponded to a gold standard, medical record number. Deduplicated datasets contained 69,523 inpatient and 176,154 outpatient records, respectively. Linkage runs blocking on DOB produced weights ranging in number from 8 for exact matching to 64,273 for inexact matching. Linkage runs blocking on YOB produced 8 to 916,806 weights. Exact matching matched record pairs with identical test characteristics (sensitivity 90.48%, specificity 99.78%) for the highest ranked group, but algorithms differentially prioritized certain variables. Inexact matching behaved more variably, leading to dramatic differences in sensitivity (range 0.04-93.36%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (range 86.67-97.35%), even for the most highly ranked record pairs. Blocking on DOB led to higher PPV of highly ranked record pairs. An ensemble approach based on averaging scaled matching weights led to modestly improved accuracy. In summary, we found few differences in the rankings of record pairs with the highest matching weights across 4 linkage packages. Performance was more consistent for exact string matching than for inexact string matching. Most methods and software packages performed similarly when comparing matching accuracy with the gold standard. In some settings, an ensemble matching approach may outperform individual linkage algorithms.