The impact of different sources of heterogeneity on loss of accuracy from genomic prediction models.

Cross-study validation (CSV) of prediction models is an alternative to traditional cross-validation (CV) in domains where multiple comparable datasets are available. Although many studies have noted potential sources of heterogeneity in genomic studies, to our knowledge none have systematically investigated their intertwined impacts on prediction accuracy across studies. We employ a hybrid parametric/non-parametric bootstrap method to realistically simulate publicly available compendia of microarray, RNA-seq, and whole metagenome shotgun microbiome studies of health outcomes. Three types of heterogeneity between studies are manipulated and studied: (i) imbalances in the prevalence of clinical and pathological covariates, (ii) differences in gene covariance that could be caused by batch, platform, or tumor purity effects, and (iii) differences in the "true" model that associates gene expression and clinical factors to outcome. We assess model accuracy, while altering these factors. Lower accuracy is seen in CSV than in CV. Surprisingly, heterogeneity in known clinical covariates and differences in gene covariance structure have very limited contributions in the loss of accuracy when validating in new studies. However, forcing identical generative models greatly reduces the within/across study difference. These results, observed consistently for multiple disease outcomes and omics platforms, suggest that the most easily identifiable sources of study heterogeneity are not necessarily the primary ones that undermine the ability to accurately replicate the accuracy of omics prediction models in new studies. Unidentified heterogeneity, such as could arise from unmeasured confounding, may be more important.