Combining clinical and molecular data in regression prediction models: insights from a simulation study

Electromagnetic radiation and biophoton emission in neuronal communication and neurodegenerative diseases

The intersection of electromagnetic radiation and neuronal communication, focusing on the potential role of biophoton emission in brain function and neurodegenerative diseases is an emerging research area. Traditionally, it is believed that neurons encode and communicate information via electrochemical impulses, generating electromagnetic fields detectable by EEG and MEG. Recent discoveries indicate that neurons may also emit biophotons, suggesting an additional communication channel alongside the regular synaptic interactions. This dual signaling system is analyzed for its potential in synchronizing neuronal activity and improving information transfer, with implications for brain-like computing systems. The clinical relevance is explored through the lens of neurodegenerative diseases and intrinsically disordered proteins, where oxidative stress may alter biophoton emission, offering clues for pathological conditions, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. The potential therapeutic use of Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) is also examined for its ability to modulate biophoton activity and mitigate oxidative stress, presenting new opportunities for treatment. Here, we invite further exploration into the intricate roles the electromagnetic phenomena play in brain function, potentially leading to breakthroughs in computational neuroscience and medical therapies for neurodegenerative diseases.

Statistical plasmode simulations-Potentials, challenges and recommendations

Statistical data simulation is essential in the development of statistical models and methods as well as in their performance evaluation. To capture complex data structures, in particular for high-dimensional data, a variety of simulation approaches have been introduced including parametric and the so-called plasmode simulations. While there are concerns about the realism of parametrically simulated data, it is widely claimed that plasmodes come very close to reality with some aspects of the "truth" known. However, there are no explicit guidelines or state-of-the-art on how to perform plasmode data simulations. In the present paper, we first review existing literature and introduce the concept of statistical plasmode simulation. We then discuss advantages and challenges of statistical plasmodes and provide a step-wise procedure for their generation, including key steps to their implementation and reporting. Finally, we illustrate the concept of statistical plasmodes as well as the proposed plasmode generation procedure by means of a public real RNA data set on breast carcinoma patients.

Statistical analysis of high-dimensional biomedical data: a gentle introduction to analytical goals, common approaches and challenges

BACKGROUND

In high-dimensional data (HDD) settings, the number of variables associated with each observation is very large. Prominent examples of HDD in biomedical research include omics data with a large number of variables such as many measurements across the genome, proteome, or metabolome, as well as electronic health records data that have large numbers of variables recorded for each patient. The statistical analysis of such data requires knowledge and experience, sometimes of complex methods adapted to the respective research questions.

METHODS

Advances in statistical methodology and machine learning methods offer new opportunities for innovative analyses of HDD, but at the same time require a deeper understanding of some fundamental statistical concepts. Topic group TG9 "High-dimensional data" of the STRATOS (STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies) initiative provides guidance for the analysis of observational studies, addressing particular statistical challenges and opportunities for the analysis of studies involving HDD. In this overview, we discuss key aspects of HDD analysis to provide a gentle introduction for non-statisticians and for classically trained statisticians with little experience specific to HDD.

RESULTS

The paper is organized with respect to subtopics that are most relevant for the analysis of HDD, in particular initial data analysis, exploratory data analysis, multiple testing, and prediction. For each subtopic, main analytical goals in HDD settings are outlined. For each of these goals, basic explanations for some commonly used analysis methods are provided. Situations are identified where traditional statistical methods cannot, or should not, be used in the HDD setting, or where adequate analytic tools are still lacking. Many key references are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

This review aims to provide a solid statistical foundation for researchers, including statisticians and non-statisticians, who are new to research with HDD or simply want to better evaluate and understand the results of HDD analyses.

Prognosis of lasso-like penalized Cox models with tumor profiling improves prediction over clinical data alone and benefits from bi-dimensional pre-screening

BACKGROUND

Prediction of patient survival from tumor molecular '-omics' data is a key step toward personalized medicine. Cox models performed on RNA profiling datasets are popular for clinical outcome predictions. But these models are applied in the context of "high dimension", as the number p of covariates (gene expressions) greatly exceeds the number n of patients and e of events. Thus, pre-screening together with penalization methods are widely used for dimensional reduction.

METHODS

In the present paper, (i) we benchmark the performance of the lasso penalization and three variants (i.e., ridge, elastic net, adaptive elastic net) on 16 cancers from TCGA after pre-screening, (ii) we propose a bi-dimensional pre-screening procedure based on both gene variability and p-values from single variable Cox models to predict survival, and (iii) we compare our results with iterative sure independence screening (ISIS).

RESULTS

First, we show that integration of mRNA-seq data with clinical data improves predictions over clinical data alone. Second, our bi-dimensional pre-screening procedure can only improve, in moderation, the C-index and/or the integrated Brier score, while excluding irrelevant genes for prediction. We demonstrate that the different penalization methods reached comparable prediction performances, with slight differences among datasets. Finally, we provide advice in the case of multi-omics data integration.

CONCLUSIONS

Tumor profiles convey more prognostic information than clinical variables such as stage for many cancer subtypes. Lasso and Ridge penalizations perform similarly than Elastic Net penalizations for Cox models in high-dimension. Pre-screening of the top 200 genes in term of single variable Cox model p-values is a practical way to reduce dimension, which may be particularly useful when integrating multi-omics.

Investigating treatment-effect modification by a continuous covariate in IPD meta-analysis: an approach using fractional polynomials

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials, there is considerable interest in investigating whether a treatment effect is similar in all patients, or that one or more prognostic variables indicate a differential response to treatment. To examine this, a continuous predictor is usually categorised into groups according to one or more cutpoints. Several weaknesses of categorization are well known. To avoid the disadvantages of cutpoints and to retain full information, it is preferable to keep continuous variables continuous in the analysis. To handle this issue, the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) was proposed about two decades ago, followed by the multivariable fractional polynomial interaction (MFPI) approach. Provided individual patient data (IPD) from several studies are available, it is possible to investigate for treatment heterogeneity with meta-analysis techniques. Meta-STEPP was recently proposed and in patients with primary breast cancer an interaction of estrogen receptors with chemotherapy was investigated in eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We use data from eight randomized controlled trials in breast cancer to illustrate issues from two main tasks. The first task is to derive a treatment effect function (TEF), that is, a measure of the treatment effect on the continuous scale of the covariate in the individual studies. The second is to conduct a meta-analysis of the continuous TEFs from the eight studies by applying pointwise averaging to obtain a mean function. We denote the method metaTEF. To improve reporting of available data and all steps of the analysis we introduce a three-part profile called MethProf-MA.

RESULTS

Although there are considerable differences between the studies (populations with large differences in prognosis, sample size, effective sample size, length of follow up, proportion of patients with very low estrogen receptor values) our results provide clear evidence of an interaction, irrespective of the choice of the FP function and random or fixed effect models.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to cutpoint-based analyses, metaTEF retains the full information from continuous covariates and avoids several critical issues when performing IPD meta-analyses of continuous effect modifiers in randomised trials. Early experience suggests it is a promising approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Undisclosed, unmet and neglected challenges in multi-omics studies

Multi-omics approaches have become a reality in both large genomics projects and small laboratories. However, the multi-omics research community still faces a number of issues that have either not been sufficiently discussed or for which current solutions are still limited. In this Perspective, we elaborate on these limitations and suggest points of attention for future research. We finally discuss new opportunities and challenges brought to the field by the rapid development of single-cell high-throughput molecular technologies.

Introduction to statistical simulations in health research

In health research, statistical methods are frequently used to address a wide variety of research questions. For almost every analytical challenge, different methods are available. But how do we choose between different methods and how do we judge whether the chosen method is appropriate for our specific study? Like in any science, in statistics, experiments can be run to find out which methods should be used under which circumstances. The main objective of this paper is to demonstrate that simulation studies, that is, experiments investigating synthetic data with known properties, are an invaluable tool for addressing these questions. We aim to provide a first introduction to simulation studies for data analysts or, more generally, for researchers involved at different levels in the analyses of health data, who (1) may rely on simulation studies published in statistical literature to choose their statistical methods and who, thus, need to understand the criteria of assessing the validity and relevance of simulation results and their interpretation; and/or (2) need to understand the basic principles of designing statistical simulations in order to efficiently collaborate with more experienced colleagues or start learning to conduct their own simulations. We illustrate the implementation of a simulation study and the interpretation of its results through a simple example inspired by recent literature, which is completely reproducible using the R-script available from online supplemental file 1.

Large-scale benchmark study of survival prediction methods using multi-omics data

Multi-omics data, that is, datasets containing different types of high-dimensional molecular variables, are increasingly often generated for the investigation of various diseases. Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the usefulness of multi-omics data for the prediction of disease outcomes such as survival time. It is also unclear which methods are most appropriate to derive such prediction models. We aim to give some answers to these questions through a large-scale benchmark study using real data. Different prediction methods from machine learning and statistics were applied on 18 multi-omics cancer datasets (35 to 1000 observations, up to 100 000 variables) from the database 'The Cancer Genome Atlas' (TCGA). The considered outcome was the (censored) survival time. Eleven methods based on boosting, penalized regression and random forest were compared, comprising both methods that do and that do not take the group structure of the omics variables into account. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and a Cox model using only clinical variables were used as reference methods. The methods were compared using several repetitions of 5-fold cross-validation. Uno's C-index and the integrated Brier score served as performance metrics. The results indicate that methods taking into account the multi-omics structure have a slightly better prediction performance. Taking this structure into account can protect the predictive information in low-dimensional groups-especially clinical variables-from not being exploited during prediction. Moreover, only the block forest method outperformed the Cox model on average, and only slightly. This indicates, as a by-product of our study, that in the considered TCGA studies the utility of multi-omics data for prediction purposes was limited. Contact:moritz.herrmann@stat.uni-muenchen.de, +49 89 2180 3198 Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Briefings in Bioinformatics online. All analyses are reproducible using R code freely available on Github.

Single-center versus multi-center data sets for molecular prognostic modeling: a simulation study

Background

Prognostic models based on high-dimensional omics data generated from clinical patient samples, such as tumor tissues or biopsies, are increasingly used for prognosis of radio-therapeutic success. The model development process requires two independent discovery and validation data sets. Each of them may contain samples collected in a single center or a collection of samples from multiple centers. Multi-center data tend to be more heterogeneous than single-center data but are less affected by potential site-specific biases. Optimal use of limited data resources for discovery and validation with respect to the expected success of a study requires dispassionate, objective decision-making. In this work, we addressed the impact of the choice of single-center and multi-center data as discovery and validation data sets, and assessed how this impact depends on the three data characteristics signal strength, number of informative features and sample size.

Methods

We set up a simulation study to quantify the predictive performance of a model trained and validated on different combinations of in silico single-center and multi-center data. The standard bioinformatical analysis workflow of batch correction, feature selection and parameter estimation was emulated. For the determination of model quality, four measures were used: false discovery rate, prediction error, chance of successful validation (significant correlation of predicted and true validation data outcome) and model calibration.

Results

In agreement with literature about generalizability of signatures, prognostic models fitted to multi-center data consistently outperformed their single-center counterparts when the prediction error was the quality criterion of interest. However, for low signal strengths and small sample sizes, single-center discovery sets showed superior performance with respect to false discovery rate and chance of successful validation.

Conclusions

With regard to decision making, this simulation study underlines the importance of study aims being defined precisely a priori. Minimization of the prediction error requires multi-center discovery data, whereas single-center data are preferable with respect to false discovery rate and chance of successful validation when the expected signal or sample size is low. In contrast, the choice of validation data solely affects the quality of the estimator of the prediction error, which was more precise on multi-center validation data.