Comparison of cancer subtype identification methods combined with feature selection methods in omics data analysis.

IF 4 3区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Biodata Mining Pub Date : 2023-07-07 DOI:10.1186/s13040-023-00334-0
JiYoon Park, Jae Won Lee, Mira Park
{"title":"Comparison of cancer subtype identification methods combined with feature selection methods in omics data analysis.","authors":"JiYoon Park,&nbsp;Jae Won Lee,&nbsp;Mira Park","doi":"10.1186/s13040-023-00334-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer subtype identification is important for the early diagnosis of cancer and the provision of adequate treatment. Prior to identifying the subtype of cancer in a patient, feature selection is also crucial for reducing the dimensionality of the data by detecting genes that contain important information about the cancer subtype. Numerous cancer subtyping methods have been developed, and their performance has been compared. However, combinations of feature selection and subtype identification methods have rarely been considered. This study aimed to identify the best combination of variable selection and subtype identification methods in single omics data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Combinations of six filter-based methods and six unsupervised subtype identification methods were investigated using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets for four cancers. The number of features selected varied, and several evaluation metrics were used. Although no single combination was found to have a distinctively good performance, Consensus Clustering (CC) and Neighborhood-Based Multi-omics Clustering (NEMO) used with variance-based feature selection had a tendency to show lower p-values, and nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) stably showed good performance in many cases unless the Dip test was used for feature selection. In terms of accuracy, the combination of NMF and similarity network fusion (SNF) with Monte Carlo Feature Selection (MCFS) and Minimum-Redundancy Maximum Relevance (mRMR) showed good overall performance. NMF always showed among the worst performances without feature selection in all datasets, but performed much better when used with various feature selection methods. iClusterBayes (ICB) had decent performance when used without feature selection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Rather than a single method clearly emerging as optimal, the best methodology was different depending on the data used, the number of features selected, and the evaluation method. A guideline for choosing the best combination method under various situations is provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":48947,"journal":{"name":"Biodata Mining","volume":"16 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10329370/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biodata Mining","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-023-00334-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cancer subtype identification is important for the early diagnosis of cancer and the provision of adequate treatment. Prior to identifying the subtype of cancer in a patient, feature selection is also crucial for reducing the dimensionality of the data by detecting genes that contain important information about the cancer subtype. Numerous cancer subtyping methods have been developed, and their performance has been compared. However, combinations of feature selection and subtype identification methods have rarely been considered. This study aimed to identify the best combination of variable selection and subtype identification methods in single omics data analysis.

Results: Combinations of six filter-based methods and six unsupervised subtype identification methods were investigated using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) datasets for four cancers. The number of features selected varied, and several evaluation metrics were used. Although no single combination was found to have a distinctively good performance, Consensus Clustering (CC) and Neighborhood-Based Multi-omics Clustering (NEMO) used with variance-based feature selection had a tendency to show lower p-values, and nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) stably showed good performance in many cases unless the Dip test was used for feature selection. In terms of accuracy, the combination of NMF and similarity network fusion (SNF) with Monte Carlo Feature Selection (MCFS) and Minimum-Redundancy Maximum Relevance (mRMR) showed good overall performance. NMF always showed among the worst performances without feature selection in all datasets, but performed much better when used with various feature selection methods. iClusterBayes (ICB) had decent performance when used without feature selection.

Conclusions: Rather than a single method clearly emerging as optimal, the best methodology was different depending on the data used, the number of features selected, and the evaluation method. A guideline for choosing the best combination method under various situations is provided.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
癌症亚型鉴定方法与特征选择方法在组学数据分析中的比较
背景:癌症亚型识别对于癌症的早期诊断和提供适当的治疗非常重要。在确定患者的癌症亚型之前,通过检测包含癌症亚型重要信息的基因,特征选择对于降低数据的维数也至关重要。已经开发了许多癌症亚型方法,并对它们的性能进行了比较。然而,结合特征选择和亚型识别的方法很少被考虑。本研究旨在确定单组学数据分析中变量选择和亚型鉴定的最佳组合方法。结果:使用The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)数据集对4种癌症进行了6种基于过滤器的方法和6种无监督亚型鉴定方法的组合研究。所选择的特征数量各不相同,并且使用了几种评估指标。虽然没有发现单一组合具有明显的良好性能,但共识聚类(CC)和基于邻域的多组学聚类(NEMO)与基于方差的特征选择一起使用有显示较低p值的趋势,非负矩阵分解(NMF)在许多情况下稳定地显示出良好的性能,除非使用Dip测试进行特征选择。在准确率方面,NMF和相似网络融合(SNF)与蒙特卡罗特征选择(MCFS)和最小冗余最大相关性(mRMR)相结合,整体表现良好。在没有特征选择的情况下,NMF在所有数据集中的表现都是最差的,而在与各种特征选择方法结合使用时,NMF的表现要好得多。iClusterBayes (ICB)在没有特征选择的情况下具有良好的性能。结论:最佳方法不是单一方法,而是根据所使用的数据、所选择的特征数量和评估方法而有所不同。为在各种情况下选择最佳组合方法提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biodata Mining
Biodata Mining MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
23 weeks
期刊介绍: BioData Mining is an open access, open peer-reviewed journal encompassing research on all aspects of data mining applied to high-dimensional biological and biomedical data, focusing on computational aspects of knowledge discovery from large-scale genetic, transcriptomic, genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data. Topical areas include, but are not limited to: -Development, evaluation, and application of novel data mining and machine learning algorithms. -Adaptation, evaluation, and application of traditional data mining and machine learning algorithms. -Open-source software for the application of data mining and machine learning algorithms. -Design, development and integration of databases, software and web services for the storage, management, retrieval, and analysis of data from large scale studies. -Pre-processing, post-processing, modeling, and interpretation of data mining and machine learning results for biological interpretation and knowledge discovery.
期刊最新文献
Deep learning-based Emergency Department In-hospital Cardiac Arrest Score (Deep EDICAS) for early prediction of cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department. Supervised multiple kernel learning approaches for multi-omics data integration. Transcriptome-based network analysis related to regulatory T cells infiltration identified RCN1 as a potential biomarker for prognosis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Deciphering the tissue-specific functional effect of Alzheimer risk SNPs with deep genome annotation. Investigating potential drug targets for IgA nephropathy and membranous nephropathy through multi-queue plasma protein analysis: a Mendelian randomization study based on SMR and co-localization analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1