Baseline Acute Myeloid Leukemia Prognosis Models using Transcriptomic and Clinical Profiles by Studying the Impacts of Dimensionality Reductions and Gene Signatures on Cox-Proportional Hazard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gene marker extraction to evaluate risk in cancer can refine the diagnosis process and lead to adapted therapies and better survival. These survival analyses can be done through computer systems and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms such as the Cox-Proportional-Hazard model from gene expression (GE) RNA-Seq data. However, optimal tuning of CPH from genome-wide GE data is challenging and poorly assessed so far. In this work we propose to interrogate an Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) dataset (Leucegene) to derive key components of the CPH driving down its performance and discovering its sensitivity to various factors in hoping to ameliorate the system. In this study, we compare the projection and selection data reduction techniques, mainly the PCA and LSC17 gene signature in combination with the CPH in a ML framework. Results reveals that CPH performs better with a combination of clinical and genetic expression features. We determine that projections performs better than selections without clinical information. We ascertain that CPH is affected by overfitting and that this overfitting is linked to the number and the content of input covariables. We show that PCA links clinical features via ability to learn from the input data directly and generalizes better than LSC17 on Leucegene. We postulate that projection are preferred than selection on harder task such as assessing risk in the intermediate subset of Leucegene. We extrapolate that these findings apply in the more general context of risk detection via machine learning in cancer. We see that higher capacity models such as CPH-DNNs systems can be improved via survival-derived projections and combat overfitting through heavy regularization. Author summary This study aims to investigate the feasibility of using gene expression to evaluate risk in cancer, and to compare the projection and selection data reduction techniques. The study used the Leucegene dataset to compare the PCA method and a previously published 17 genes signature in combination with the Cox-Proportional-Hazard model in a machine learning framework. Results showed that CPH was affected by overfitting and that this overfitting was linked to the number and the content of input covariables. The study found that PCA links clinical features via ability to learn from the input data directly and generalizes better than LSC17 on Leucegene. The study concluded that projections are preferred than selection on harder task such as assessing risk in the intermediate subset of Leucegene and can be tuned to improve their performance. Data availability statement Source code for pipelines and algorithms, as well as gene expression matrices, are available here: https://github.com/lemieux-lab/dimensions_coxph . Access to the Leucegene cohort’s survival times can be granted upon request and following ethical review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".