Robustifying Genomic Classifiers To Batch Effects Via Ensemble Learning.

MOTIVATION Genomic data are often produced in batches due to practical restrictions, which may lead to unwanted variation in data caused by discrepancies across batches. Such" batch effects" often have negative impact on downstream biological analysis and need careful consideration. In practice, batch effects are usually addressed by specifically designed software, which merge the data from different batches, then estimate batch effects and remove them from the data. Here we focus on classification and prediction problems, and propose a different strategy based on ensemble learning. We first develop prediction models within each batch, then integrate them through ensemble weighting methods. RESULTS We provide a systematic comparison between these two strategies using studies targeting diverse populations infected with tuberculosis. In one study, we simulated increasing levels of heterogeneity across random subsets of the study, which we treat as simulated batches. We then use the two methods to develop a genomic classifier for the binary indicator of disease status. We evaluate the accuracy of prediction in another independent study targeting a different population cohort. We observed that in independent validation, while merging followed by batch adjustment provides better discrimination at low level of heterogeneity, our ensemble learning strategy achieves more robust performance, especially at high severity of batch effects. These observations provide practical guidelines for handling batch effects in the development and evaluation of genomic classifiers. AVAILABILITY Code to reproduce the results in this paper is available at https://github.com/zhangyuqing/bea_ensemble. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

[1]  Giovanni Parmigiani,et al.  The impact of different sources of heterogeneity on loss of accuracy from genomic prediction models. , 2018, Biostatistics.

[2]  Reinhard Guthke,et al.  Batch correction of microarray data substantially improves the identification of genes differentially expressed in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis , 2012, BMC Medical Genomics.

[3]  Yuqing Zhang,et al.  Alternative empirical Bayes models for adjusting for batch effects in genomic studies , 2018, BMC Bioinformatics.

[4]  A. Raftery,et al.  Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation , 2007 .

[5]  Gautam Roy,et al.  Existing blood transcriptional classifiers accurately discriminate active tuberculosis from latent infection in individuals from south India. , 2018, Tuberculosis.

[6]  Jonathan H. Chan,et al.  Handling batch effects on cross-platform classification of microarray data , 2016, Int. J. Adv. Intell. Paradigms.

[7]  Hugues Bersini,et al.  Batch effect removal methods for microarray gene expression data integration: a survey , 2013, Briefings Bioinform..

[8]  Anne-Laure Boulesteix,et al.  Cross-study validation for the assessment of prediction algorithms , 2014, Bioinform..

[9]  L. Coin,et al.  Diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis and host RNA expression in Africa. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Johann A. Gagnon-Bartsch,et al.  Using control genes to correct for unwanted variation in microarray data. , 2012, Biostatistics.

[11]  Joel S. Parker,et al.  Adjustment of systematic microarray data biases , 2004, Bioinform..

[12]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Stacked regressions , 2004, Machine Learning.

[13]  Tieliu Shi,et al.  A comparison of batch effect removal methods for enhancement of prediction performance using MAQC-II microarray gene expression data , 2010, The Pharmacogenomics Journal.

[14]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[15]  Nicola D. Roberts,et al.  Genomic Classification and Prognosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Giovanni Parmigiani,et al.  ComBat-seq: batch effect adjustment for RNA-seq count data , 2020, NAR genomics and bioinformatics.

[17]  Daniel E. Zak,et al.  A prospective blood RNA signature for tuberculosis disease risk , 2016, The Lancet.

[18]  Paul Hoffman,et al.  Integrating single-cell transcriptomic data across different conditions, technologies, and species , 2018, Nature Biotechnology.

[19]  David M. Simcha,et al.  Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[20]  Jaeyun Sung,et al.  Measuring the Effect of Inter-Study Variability on Estimating Prediction Error , 2014, PloS one.

[21]  C. Huttenhower,et al.  Risk prediction for late-stage ovarian cancer by meta-analysis of 1525 patient samples. , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  Mads Thomassen,et al.  Microarray-Based RNA Profiling of Breast Cancer: Batch Effect Removal Improves Cross-Platform Consistency , 2014, BioMed research international.

[23]  Gordon K. Smyth,et al.  limma: Linear Models for Microarray Data , 2005 .

[24]  M. Radmacher,et al.  Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[25]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Normalization of RNA-seq data using factor analysis of control genes or samples , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.

[26]  Vladimir Vapnik,et al.  Support-vector networks , 2004, Machine Learning.

[27]  G. Dougan,et al.  The Key Role of Genomics in Modern Vaccine and Drug Design for Emerging Infectious Diseases , 2009, PLoS genetics.

[28]  K. Badani,et al.  Effect of a genomic classifier test on clinical practice decisions for patients with high-risk prostate cancer after surgery , 2014, BJU international.

[29]  R. Tibshirani Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[30]  Prasad Patil,et al.  Training replicable predictors in multiple studies , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Cheng Li,et al.  Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. , 2007, Biostatistics.

[32]  Jane E. Hill,et al.  Comparison of common machine learning models for classification of tuberculosis using transcriptional biomarkers from integrated datasets , 2019, Appl. Soft Comput..

[33]  G. Silvestri,et al.  A Bronchial Genomic Classifier for the Diagnostic Evaluation of Lung Cancer. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  Prasad Patil,et al.  Tree-Weighting for Multi-Study Ensemble Learners , 2019, bioRxiv.

[35]  Donald Geman,et al.  Tracking Cross-Validated Estimates of Prediction Error as Studies Accumulate , 2015 .

[36]  John D. Storey,et al.  Capturing Heterogeneity in Gene Expression Studies by Surrogate Variable Analysis , 2007, PLoS genetics.

[37]  J. Casanova,et al.  Tuberculosis in children and adults , 2005, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[38]  J. Mesirov,et al.  Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. , 1999, Science.

[39]  G. Parmigiani,et al.  Merging versus Ensembling in Multi-Study Machine Learning: Theoretical Insight from Random Effects , 2019, ArXiv.

[40]  Chandini Raina MacIntyre,et al.  Risk Factors for Tuberculosis , 2013, Pulmonary medicine.

[41]  J. Leek svaseq: removing batch effects and other unwanted noise from sequencing data , 2014, bioRxiv.