Back

Predictive Classification of IBS-subtype: Performance of a 250-gene RNA expression panel vs. Complete Blood Count (CBC) profiles under a Random Forest model.

Robinson, J.

2021-09-02 health informatics
10.1101/2021.08.31.21262766 medRxiv
Show abstract

In this experiment, an R-script was developed to select the best performing machine learning (ML) predictive classification algorithm for IBS-subtype, and compare the performance of two datasets from the same clinical cohort - 1) The Complete Blood Count (CBC) results, and 2) A 250-gene Nanostring expression panel run on RNA from the "Buffy Coat" fraction. This publicly available data was compiled from open-source repositories and previously published supplementary data. Column labels were reformatted according to "tidy-data" standards. NA values in the data were imputed based on the mean value of the data column. Subject groups included Control (ie. healthy), IBS-D (diarrhea predominant), and IBS-C (constipation predominant) subtypes. These groups had unequal numbers in the original study, and so random re-sampling was used to make the group numbers equal for downstream linear regression-based analyses. The data was randomly split into training and validation subsets, and 5 classification algorithms were tested. Random Forest was clearly the best performing algorithm for both CBC and gene expression panel data, generally with >95% predictive accuracy, without additional tuning. The 250-gene RNA expression panel performed somewhat better than the CBC profile under a Random Forest model, however the CBC profiles had only 13 predictor variables vs. the 250 of the RNA expression panel. Some artifacts may result from the duplication of IBS-D and IBS-C rows from to the group-size balancing method, and so larger and more comprehensive datasets will be obtained for a follow-up analysis. The R-script and reformatted data are published as supplementary material here, and as a component of the AnalyzeBloodworkv1.2 GitHub repository.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.