Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29713384›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2018

Improving machine learning reproducibility in genetic association studies with proportional instance cross validation (PICV).

Elizabeth R Piette, Jason H Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Brief Survey on Machine Learning in Epistasis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth R Piette1Graduate Group in Genomics and Computational Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA.
Jason H Moore2Institute for Biomedical Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA USA.

Funding

Human Pancreas Analysis Program for Type 1 Diabetes - HPAP-T1DU01DK112217 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MARK A. ATKINSON, KLAUS H KAESTNER · 2021 to 2026
$46.8M
Translational Research Support CoreP30ES013508 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Trevor M Penning · 2006 to 2026
$35.3M
Penn integrated Human Pancreas procurement and Analysis ProgramUC4DK112217 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BETTS, MICHAEL R, FELDMAN, MICHAEL D · 2016 to 2020
$17.8M
Bioinformatics Strategies for Genome-Wide Association StudiesR01LM010098 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MOORE, JASON H., WILLIAMS, SCOTT MATTHEW · 2009 to 2023
$5.1M
Biomedical Computing and Informatics Strategies for Infectious Disease ResearchR01AI116794 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MOORE, JASON H. · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
Biomedical Computing and Informatics Strategies for Precision MedicineR01LM012601 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HUANG, XIUZHEN, MOORE, JASON H. · 2017 to 2020
$1.8M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI116794NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK112217NIDDK NIH HHS UC4 DK112217NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES013508NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010098NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012601
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning methods and conventions are increasingly employed for the analysis of large, complex biomedical data sets, including genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Reproducibility of machine learning analyses of GWAS can be hampered by biological and statistical factors, particularly so for the investigation of non-additive genetic interactions. Application of traditional cross validation to a GWAS data set may result in poor consistency between the training and testing data set splits due to an imbalance of the interaction genotypes relative to the data as a whole. We propose a new cross validation method, proportional instance cross validation (PICV), that preserves the original distribution of an independent variable when splitting the data set into training and testing partitions.

resultsWe apply PICV to simulated GWAS data with epistatic interactions of varying minor allele frequencies and prevalences and compare performance to that of a traditional cross validation procedure in which individuals are randomly allocated to training and testing partitions. Sensitivity and positive predictive value are significantly improved across all tested scenarios for PICV compared to traditional cross validation. We also apply PICV to GWAS data from a study of primary open-angle glaucoma to investigate a previously-reported interaction, which fails to significantly replicate; PICV however improves the consistency of testing and training results.

conclusionsApplication of traditional machine learning procedures to biomedical data may require modifications to better suit intrinsic characteristics of the data, such as the potential for highly imbalanced genotype distributions in the case of epistasis detection. The reproducibility of genetic interaction findings can be improved by considering this variable imbalance in cross validation implementation, such as with PICV. This approach may be extended to problems in other domains in which imbalanced variable distributions are a concern.

Indexed as

Cross validationEpistasisGWASMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID29713384
PMCPMC5907739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.