The impact of violating the independence assumption in meta-analysis on biomarker discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With rapid advancements in high-throughput sequencing technologies, massive amounts of “-omics” data are now available in almost every biomedical field. Due to variance in biological models and analytic methods, findings from clinical and biological studies are often not generalizable when tested in independent cohorts. Meta-analysis, a set of statistical tools to integrate independent studies addressing similar research questions, has been proposed to improve the accuracy and robustness of new biological insights. However, it is common practice among biomarker discovery studies using preclinical pharmacogenomic data to borrow molecular profiles of cancer cell lines from one study to another, creating dependence across studies. The impact of violating the independence assumption in meta-analyses is largely unknown. In this study, we review and compare different meta-analyses to estimate variations across studies along with biomarker discoveries using preclinical pharmacogenomics data. We further evaluate the performance of conventional meta-analysis where the dependence of the effects was ignored via simulation studies. Results show that, as the number of non-independent effects increased, relative mean squared error and lower coverage probability increased. Additionally, we also assess potential bias in the estimation of effects for established meta-analysis approaches when data are duplicated and the assumption of independence is violated. Using pharmacogenomics biomarker discovery, we find that treating dependent studies as independent can substantially increase the bias of meta-analyses. Importantly, we show that violating the independence assumption decreases the generalizability of the biomarker discovery process and increases false positive results, a key challenge in precision oncology.
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 | 0.281 | 0.436 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".