Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39323092›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024

Algorithm-agnostic significance testing in supervised learning with multimodal data.

Lucas Kook, Anton Rask Lundborg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Lucas KookInstitute for Statistics and Mathematics, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, AT-1020 Vienna, Austria.
Anton Rask LundborgDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

Novo Nordisk Fonden 0069071Swiss National Science Foundation 214457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationValid statistical inference is crucial for decision-making but difficult to obtain in supervised learning with multimodal data, e.g. combinations of clinical features, genomic data, and medical images. Multimodal data often warrants the use of black-box algorithms, for instance, random forests or neural networks, which impede the use of traditional variable significance tests.

resultsWe address this problem by proposing the use of COvariance MEasure Tests (COMETs), which are calibrated and powerful tests that can be combined with any sufficiently predictive supervised learning algorithm. We apply COMETs to several high-dimensional, multimodal data sets to illustrate (i) variable significance testing for finding relevant mutations modulating drug-activity, (ii) modality selection for predicting survival in liver cancer patients with multiomics data, and (iii) modality selection with clinical features and medical imaging data. In all applications, COMETs yield results consistent with domain knowledge without requiring data-driven pre-processing, which may invalidate type I error control. These novel applications with high-dimensional multimodal data corroborate prior results on the power and robustness of COMETs for significance testing. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: COMETs are implemented in the cometsR package available on CRAN and pycometsPython library available on GitHub. Source code for reproducing all results is available at https://github.com/LucasKook/comets. All data sets used in this work are openly available.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSupervised Machine LearningComputational BiologyHumansLiver NeoplasmsConditional independenceGeneralised Covariance Measuremultimodal dataProjected Covariance Measuresignificance testin

Identifiers

PMID39323092
PMCPMC11424510

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.