DEVELOPMENT OF NOVEL METHODS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF SEQUENCING ERRORS IN THE NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING DATA ANALYSIS

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has become a prominent tool in biological and biomedical research. However, NGS data analysis, such as de novo assembly, mapping and variants detection is far from maturity, and the high sequencing error-rate is one of the major problems. . To minimize the impact of sequencing errors, we developed a highly robust and efficient method, MTM, to correct the errors in NGS reads. We demonstrated the effectiveness of MTM on both single-cell data with highly non-uniform coverage and normal data with uniformly high coverage, reflecting that MTM’s performance does not rely on the coverage of the sequencing reads. MTM was also compared with Hammer and Quake, the best methods for correcting non-uniform and uniform data respectively. For non-uniform data, MTM outperformed both Hammer and Quake. For uniform data, MTM showed better performance than Quake and comparable results to Hammer. By making better error correction with MTM, the quality of downstream analysis, such as mapping and SNP detection, was improved. SNP calling is a major application of NGS technologies. However, the existence of sequencing errors complicates this process, especially for the low coverage (

Design and analysis for three level hierarchical structures with count response

In numerous intervention studies and education field trials, random assignment to treatment occurs in clusters rather than at the level of observation. This departure of random assignment of units may be due to logistics, political feasibility, or ecological validity. Data within the same cluster or grouping are often correlated. Application of traditional regression techniques, which assume independence between observations, to clustered data produce consistent parameter estimates. However such estimators are often inefficient as compared to methods which incorporate the clustered nature of the data into the estimation procedure (Neuhaus 1993).1 Multilevel models, also known as random effects or random components models, can be used to account for the clustering of data by estimating higher level, or group, as well as lower level, or individual variation. Designing a study, in which the unit of observation is nested within higher level groupings, requires the determination of sample sizes at each level. This study investigates the design and analysis of various sampling strategies for a 3-level repeated measures design on the parameter estimates when the outcome variable of interest follows a Poisson distribution. ^ Results study suggest that second order PQL estimation produces the least biased estimates in the 3-level multilevel Poisson model followed by first order PQL and then second and first order MQL. The MQL estimates of both fixed and random parameters are generally satisfactory when the level 2 and level 3 variation is less than 0.10. However, as the higher level error variance increases, the MQL estimates become increasingly biased. If convergence of the estimation algorithm is not obtained by PQL procedure and higher level error variance is large, the estimates may be significantly biased. In this case bias correction techniques such as bootstrapping should be considered as an alternative procedure. For larger sample sizes, those structures with 20 or more units sampled at levels with normally distributed random errors produced more stable estimates with less sampling variance than structures with an increased number of level 1 units. For small sample sizes, sampling fewer units at the level with Poisson variation produces less sampling variation, however this criterion is no longer important when sample sizes are large. ^ 1Neuhaus J (1993). “Estimation efficiency and Tests of Covariate Effects with Clustered Binary Data”. Biometrics , 49, 989–996^

Multiple imputation for missing continuous and dichotomous data: The effects of patterns of missingness and variable correlations on type I error with small samples

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of predictor variable correlations and patterns of missingness with dichotomous and/or continuous data in small samples when missing data is multiply imputed. Missing data of predictor variables is multiply imputed under three different multivariate models: the multivariate normal model for continuous data, the multinomial model for dichotomous data and the general location model for mixed dichotomous and continuous data. Subsequent to the multiple imputation process, Type I error rates of the regression coefficients obtained with logistic regression analysis are estimated under various conditions of correlation structure, sample size, type of data and patterns of missing data. The distributional properties of average mean, variance and correlations among the predictor variables are assessed after the multiple imputation process. ^ For continuous predictor data under the multivariate normal model, Type I error rates are generally within the nominal values with samples of size n = 100. Smaller samples of size n = 50 resulted in more conservative estimates (i.e., lower than the nominal value). Correlation and variance estimates of the original data are retained after multiple imputation with less than 50% missing continuous predictor data. For dichotomous predictor data under the multinomial model, Type I error rates are generally conservative, which in part is due to the sparseness of the data. The correlation structure for the predictor variables is not well retained on multiply-imputed data from small samples with more than 50% missing data with this model. For mixed continuous and dichotomous predictor data, the results are similar to those found under the multivariate normal model for continuous data and under the multinomial model for dichotomous data. With all data types, a fully-observed variable included with variables subject to missingness in the multiple imputation process and subsequent statistical analysis provided liberal (larger than nominal values) Type I error rates under a specific pattern of missing data. It is suggested that future studies focus on the effects of multiple imputation in multivariate settings with more realistic data characteristics and a variety of multivariate analyses, assessing both Type I error and power. ^

Bayesian generalized linear models for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests

With the recognition of the importance of evidence-based medicine, there is an emerging need for methods to systematically synthesize available data. Specifically, methods to provide accurate estimates of test characteristics for diagnostic tests are needed to help physicians make better clinical decisions. To provide more flexible approaches for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests, we developed three Bayesian generalized linear models. Two of these models, a bivariate normal and a binomial model, analyzed pairs of sensitivity and specificity values while incorporating the correlation between these two outcome variables. Noninformative independent uniform priors were used for the variance of sensitivity, specificity and correlation. We also applied an inverse Wishart prior to check the sensitivity of the results. The third model was a multinomial model where the test results were modeled as multinomial random variables. All three models can include specific imaging techniques as covariates in order to compare performance. Vague normal priors were assigned to the coefficients of the covariates. The computations were carried out using the 'Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling' implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. We investigated the properties of the three proposed models through extensive simulation studies. We also applied these models to a previously published meta-analysis dataset on cervical cancer as well as to an unpublished melanoma dataset. In general, our findings show that the point estimates of sensitivity and specificity were consistent among Bayesian and frequentist bivariate normal and binomial models. However, in the simulation studies, the estimates of the correlation coefficient from Bayesian bivariate models are not as good as those obtained from frequentist estimation regardless of which prior distribution was used for the covariance matrix. The Bayesian multinomial model consistently underestimated the sensitivity and specificity regardless of the sample size and correlation coefficient. In conclusion, the Bayesian bivariate binomial model provides the most flexible framework for future applications because of its following strengths: (1) it facilitates direct comparison between different tests; (2) it captures the variability in both sensitivity and specificity simultaneously as well as the intercorrelation between the two; and (3) it can be directly applied to sparse data without ad hoc correction. ^

Selection bias and the cross-validation of regression models for prediction

Strategies are compared for the development of a linear regression model with stochastic (multivariate normal) regressor variables and the subsequent assessment of its predictive ability. Bias and mean squared error of four estimators of predictive performance are evaluated in simulated samples of 32 population correlation matrices. Models including all of the available predictors are compared with those obtained using selected subsets. The subset selection procedures investigated include two stopping rules, C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$, each combined with an 'all possible subsets' or 'forward selection' of variables. The estimators of performance utilized include parametric (MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$) and non-parametric (PRESS) assessments in the entire sample, and two data splitting estimates restricted to a random or balanced (Snee's DUPLEX) 'validation' half sample. The simulations were performed as a designed experiment, with population correlation matrices representing a broad range of data structures.^ The techniques examined for subset selection do not generally result in improved predictions relative to the full model. Approaches using 'forward selection' result in slightly smaller prediction errors and less biased estimators of predictive accuracy than 'all possible subsets' approaches but no differences are detected between the performances of C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$. In every case, prediction errors of models obtained by subset selection in either of the half splits exceed those obtained using all predictors and the entire sample.^ Only the random split estimator is conditionally (on $\\beta$) unbiased, however MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ is unbiased on average and PRESS is nearly so in unselected (fixed form) models. When subset selection techniques are used, MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ and PRESS always underestimate prediction errors, by as much as 27 percent (on average) in small samples. Despite their bias, the mean squared errors (MSE) of these estimators are at least 30 percent less than that of the unbiased random split estimator. The DUPLEX split estimator suffers from large MSE as well as bias, and seems of little value within the context of stochastic regressor variables.^ To maximize predictive accuracy while retaining a reliable estimate of that accuracy, it is recommended that the entire sample be used for model development, and a leave-one-out statistic (e.g. PRESS) be used for assessment. ^

Information bias and lifetime mortality risks of radiation-induced cancer

Additive and multiplicative models of relative risk were used to measure the effect of cancer misclassification and DS86 random errors on lifetime risk projections in the Life Span Study (LSS) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors. The true number of cancer deaths in each stratum of the cancer mortality cross-classification was estimated using sufficient statistics from the EM algorithm. Average survivor doses in the strata were corrected for DS86 random error ($\sigma$ = 0.45) by use of reduction factors. Poisson regression was used to model the corrected and uncorrected mortality rates with covariates for age at-time-of-bombing, age at-time-of-death and gender. Excess risks were in good agreement with risks in RERF Report 11 (Part 2) and the BEIR-V report. Bias due to DS86 random error typically ranged from $-$15% to $-$30% for both sexes, and all sites and models. The total bias, including diagnostic misclassification, of excess risk of nonleukemia for exposure to 1 Sv from age 18 to 65 under the non-constant relative projection model was $-$37.1% for males and $-$23.3% for females. Total excess risks of leukemia under the relative projection model were biased $-$27.1% for males and $-$43.4% for females. Thus, nonleukemia risks for 1 Sv from ages 18 to 85 (DRREF = 2) increased from 1.91%/Sv to 2.68%/Sv among males and from 3.23%/Sv to 4.02%/Sv among females. Leukemia excess risks increased from 0.87%/Sv to 1.10%/Sv among males and from 0.73%/Sv to 1.04%/Sv among females. Bias was dependent on the gender, site, correction method, exposure profile and projection model considered. Future studies that use LSS data for U.S. nuclear workers may be downwardly biased if lifetime risk projections are not adjusted for random and systematic errors. (Supported by U.S. NRC Grant NRC-04-091-02.) ^

Slope estimation in a parametric measurement error model: A simulation study

In regression analysis, covariate measurement error occurs in many applications. The error-prone covariates are often referred to as latent variables. In this proposed study, we extended the study of Chan et al. (2008) on recovering latent slope in a simple regression model to that in a multiple regression model. We presented an approach that applied the Monte Carlo method in the Bayesian framework to the parametric regression model with the measurement error in an explanatory variable. The proposed estimator applied the conditional expectation of latent slope given the observed outcome and surrogate variables in the multiple regression models. A simulation study was presented showing that the method produces estimator that is efficient in the multiple regression model, especially when the measurement error variance of surrogate variable is large.^

Analysis of life expectancy using linear and nonlinear models

Life expectancy has consistently increased over the last 150 years due to improvements in nutrition, medicine, and public health. Several studies found that in many developed countries, life expectancy continued to rise following a nearly linear trend, which was contrary to a common belief that the rate of improvement in life expectancy would decelerate and was fit with an S-shaped curve. Using samples of countries that exhibited a wide range of economic development levels, we explored the change in life expectancy over time by employing both nonlinear and linear models. We then observed if there were any significant differences in estimates between linear models, assuming an auto-correlated error structure. When data did not have a sigmoidal shape, nonlinear growth models sometimes failed to provide meaningful parameter estimates. The existence of an inflection point and asymptotes in the growth models made them inflexible with life expectancy data. In linear models, there was no significant difference in the life expectancy growth rate and future estimates between ordinary least squares (OLS) and generalized least squares (GLS). However, the generalized least squares model was more robust because the data involved time-series variables and residuals were positively correlated. ^