Back

Precision survival estimation in acute myeloid leukemia using evolutionary learning-derived microRNA signature

Yerukala Sathipati, S.; Agustriawan, D.; Gopireddy, N. S. R.; Popat, A.; Moat, L.; Aimalla, N.; Elugoti, M. R.; Kampa, S. A.; Sharma, P.; Ho, S.-Y.; Sharma, R.

2026-05-26 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.05.22.727196 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains the most lethal acute leukemia in adults, with 5-year overall survival below 32% despite recent advances including venetoclax-, FLT3-, IDH1/2-, and Menin-targeted therapies. Clinical outcomes remain highly heterogeneous across patients, highlighting the need for robust molecular biomarkers capable of improving prognostic precision. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are critical regulators of hematopoietic differentiation, apoptosis, and therapeutic resistance and are differentially expressed across AML subtypes. However, their clinical translation has been limited by high dimensionality, feature redundancy, and relatively small cohort sizes. MethodsWe developed and evaluated the AML Survival Estimator (AMLS), an inheritable bi-objective combinatorial genetic algorithm integrated with support vector regression (SVR), using TCGA-LAML miRNA expression profiles (n = 156). AMLS was benchmarked against ten widely used machine-learning approaches, including penalized regression, tree-based ensembles, support-vector regression, k-nearest neighbors, and multilayer perceptron models. Performance was assessed using stratified cross-validation with Pearson correlation (R), Harrells concordance index (C-index), and mean absolute error (MAE). Functional characterization of the derived miRNA signature was performed through consensus target integration followed by pathway enrichment, gene ontology analysis, network reconstruction, and Kaplan-Meier risk stratification. ResultsAMLS achieved superior prognostic performance with pooled out-of-fold metrics of Pearson R = 0.86, C-index = 0.788, and MAE = 7.49 months, substantially outperforming all comparator models. Restricting analyses to the AMLS-derived 28-miRNA signature improved all baseline learners by approximately 2-4-fold, with the multilayer perceptron achieving R = 0.674; however, none matched the native AMLS framework, indicating that the evolutionary optimization strategy contributes predictive information beyond feature selection alone. The prognostic signature included biologically established AML-associated miRNAs, including hsa-miR-191, hsa-miR-29c, hsa-miR-125b, hsa-miR-148a, hsa-miR-15b, hsa-miR-10b, and hsa-miR-30c, linked to DNA methylation, apoptosis, cell-cycle regulation, and oncogenic Wnt/MAPK signaling pathways. Functional analyses demonstrated significant enrichment of canonical AML-associated pathways, including p53, PI3K-AKT, TGF-{beta}, JAK-STAT, FoxO, and hematopoietic lineage signaling. ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that evolutionary learning integrated with SVR can recover a compact and biologically interpretable miRNA prognostic signature that substantially outperforms conventional machine-learning approaches for AML survival prediction. The identified miRNA network converged on key leukemogenic pathways involved in apoptosis, cell-cycle regulation, and oncogenic signaling, supporting both the biological relevance and prognostic utility of the framework. Given the minimally invasive and quantitatively scalable nature of miRNA profiling, this approach may provide a practical molecular adjunct for improving prognostic assessment and precision medicine strategies in AML. Abstract FigureSchematic overview of the AMLS framework. Left: acute myeloid leukemia, a clonal hematological malignancy with persistent prognostic heterogeneity. Middle: AMLS couples an evolutionary learning-based feature selection algorithms to support vector regression for miRNA-based survival modeling. Right: AMLS recovers a 28-miRNA prognostic signature that predicts overall survival with Pearson R = 0.86 and MAE = 7.5 months. O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=86 SRC="FIGDIR/small/727196v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (20K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@11ead1org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@4f5c19org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@277de1org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@b95c9a_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 3%
10.3%
2
Leukemia
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
3
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.9%
4
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.0%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.0%
7
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
8
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 9%
3.7%
9
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
10
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
11
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
12
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
13
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
14
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
Blood Advances
54 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
16
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 42%
1.7%
18
Blood
67 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
19
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
20
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
21
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.4%
22
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
23
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
24
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 24%
1.0%
25
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
26
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
27
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
28
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
29
ImmunoInformatics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
30
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%