Classification and selection of biomarkers in genomic data using LASSO

High-throughput gene expression technologies such as microarrays have been utilized in a variety of scientific applications. Most of the work has been on assessing univariate associations between gene expression with clinical outcome (variable selection) or on developing classification procedures with gene expression data (supervised learning). We consider a hybrid variable selection/classification approach that is based on linear combinations of the gene expression profiles that maximize an accuracy measure summarized using the receiver operating characteristic curve. Under a specific probability model, this leads to consideration of linear discriminant functions. We incorporate an automated variable selection approach using LASSO. An equivalence between LASSO estimation with support vector machines allows for model fitting using standard software. We apply the proposed method to simulated data as well as data from a recently published prostate cancer study.

Limitations of the Odds Ratio in Gauging the Performance of a Diagnostic or Prognostic Marker

A marker that is strongly associated with outcome (or disease) is often assumed to be effective for classifying individuals according to their current or future outcome. However, for this to be true, the associated odds ratio must be of a magnitude rarely seen in epidemiological studies. An illustration of the relationship between odds ratios and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves shows, for example, that a marker with an odds ratio as high as 3 is in fact a very poor classification tool. If a marker identifies 10 percent of controls as positive (false positives) and has an odds ratio of 3, then it will only correctly identify 25 percent of cases as positive (true positives). Moreover, the authors illustrate that a single measure of association such as an odds ratio does not meaningfully describe a marker’s ability to classify subjects. Appropriate statistical methods for assessing and reporting the classification power of a marker are described. The serious pitfalls of using more traditional methods based on parameters in logistic regression models are illustrated.

Model Checking for ROC Regression Analysis

The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve is a prominent tool for characterizing the accuracy of continuous diagnostic test. To account for factors that might invluence the test accuracy, various ROC regression methods have been proposed. However, as in any regression analysis, when the assumed models do not fit the data well, these methods may render invalid and misleading results. To date practical model checking techniques suitable for validating existing ROC regression models are not yet available. In this paper, we develop cumulative residual based procedures to graphically and numerically assess the goodness-of-fit for some commonly used ROC regression models, and show how specific components of these models can be examined within this framework. We derive asymptotic null distributions for the residual process and discuss resampling procedures to approximate these distributions in practice. We illustrate our methods with a dataset from the Cystic Fibrosis registry.

MULTIPLE MODEL EVALUATION ABSENT THE GOLD STANDARD VIA MODEL COMBINATION

We describe a method for evaluating an ensemble of predictive models given a sample of observations comprising the model predictions and the outcome event measured with error. Our formulation allows us to simultaneously estimate measurement error parameters, true outcome — aka the gold standard — and a relative weighting of the predictive scores. We describe conditions necessary to estimate the gold standard and for these estimates to be calibrated and detail how our approach is related to, but distinct from, standard model combination techniques. We apply our approach to data from a study to evaluate a collection of BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation prediction scores. In this example, genotype is measured with error by one or more genetic assays. We estimate true genotype for each individual in the dataset, operating characteristics of the commonly used genotyping procedures and a relative weighting of the scores. Finally, we compare the scores against the gold standard genotype and find that Mendelian scores are, on average, the more refined and better calibrated of those considered and that the comparison is sensitive to measurement error in the gold standard.