Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37745001›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics advances2023

Detecting biased validation of predictive models in the positive-unlabeled setting: disease gene prioritization case study.

Ivan Molotkov, Mykyta Artomov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Ivan MolotkovThe Steve and Cindy Rasmussen Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States.
Mykyta ArtomovThe Steve and Cindy Rasmussen Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5282-8764

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: Positive-unlabeled data consists of points with either positive or unknown labels. It is widespread in medical, genetic, and biological settings, creating a high demand for predictive positive-unlabeled models. The performance of such models is usually estimated using validation sets, assumed to be selected completely at random (SCAR) from known positive examples. For certain metrics, this assumption enables unbiased performance estimation when treating positive-unlabeled data as positive/negative. However, the SCAR assumption is often adopted without proper justifications, simply for the sake of convenience. Results: We provide an algorithm that under the weak assumptions of a lower bound on the number of positive examples can test for the violation of the SCAR assumption. Applying it to the problem of gene prioritization for complex genetic traits, we illustrate that the SCAR assumption is often violated there, causing the inflation of performance estimates, which we refer to as validation bias. We estimate the potential impact of validation bias on performance estimation. Our analysis reveals that validation bias is widespread in gene prioritization data and can significantly overestimate the performance of models. This finding elucidates the discrepancy between the reported good performance of models and their limited practical applications. Availability and implementation: Python code with examples of application of the validation bias detection algorithm is available at github.com/ArtomovLab/ValidationBias.

Identifiers

PMID37745001
PMCPMC10517638

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.