Back

Putting computational models of immunity to the test - an invited challenge to predict B. pertussis vaccination outcomes

Shinde, P.; Willemsen, L.; Anderson, M.; Aoki, M.; Basu, S.; Burel, J. G.; Cheng, P.; Dastidar, S. G.; Dunleavy, A.; Einav, T.; Forschmiedt, J.; Fourati, S.; Garcia, J.; Gibson, W.; Greenbaum, J. A.; Guan, L.; Guan, W.; Gygi, J. P.; Ha, B.; Hou, J.; Hsiao, J.; Huang, Y.; Jansen, R.; Kakoty, B.; Kang, Z.; Kobie, J. J.; Kojima, M.; Konstorum, A.; Lee, J.; Lewis, S. A.; Li, A.; Lock, E. F.; Mahita, J.; Mendes, M.; Meng, H.; Neher, A.; Nili, S.; Orfield, S.; Overton, J.; Pai, N.; Parker, C.; Qian, B.; Rasmussen, M.; Reyna, J.; Richardson, E.; Safo, S.; Sorenson, J.; Srinivasan, A.; Thrupp, N.; Tip

2024-09-08 immunology
10.1101/2024.09.04.611290 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Systems vaccinology studies have been used to build computational models that predict individual vaccine responses and identify the factors contributing to differences in outcome. Comparing such models is challenging due to variability in study designs. To address this, we established a community resource to compare models predicting B. pertussis booster responses and generate experimental data for the explicit purpose of model evaluation. We here describe our second computational prediction challenge using this resource, where we benchmarked 49 algorithms from 53 scientists. We found that the most successful models stood out in their handling of nonlinearities, reducing large feature sets to representative subsets, and advanced data preprocessing. In contrast, we found that models adopted from literature that were developed to predict vaccine antibody responses in other settings performed poorly, reinforcing the need for purpose-built models. Overall, this demonstrates the value of purpose-generated datasets for rigorous and open model evaluations to identify features that improve the reliability and applicability of computational models in vaccine response prediction.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.