Literature DB >> 27667129

Promoting similarity of model sparsity structures in integrative analysis of cancer genetic data.

Yuan Huang1, Jin Liu2, Huangdi Yi3, Ben-Chang Shia4, Shuangge Ma1.   

Abstract

In profiling studies, the analysis of a single dataset often leads to unsatisfactory results because of the small sample size. Multi-dataset analysis utilizes information of multiple independent datasets and outperforms single-dataset analysis. Among the available multi-dataset analysis methods, integrative analysis methods aggregate and analyze raw data and outperform meta-analysis methods, which analyze multiple datasets separately and then pool summary statistics. In this study, we conduct integrative analysis and marker selection under the heterogeneity structure, which allows different datasets to have overlapping but not necessarily identical sets of markers. Under certain scenarios, it is reasonable to expect some similarity of identified marker sets - or equivalently, similarity of model sparsity structures - across multiple datasets. However, the existing methods do not have a mechanism to explicitly promote such similarity. To tackle this problem, we develop a sparse boosting method. This method uses a BIC/HDBIC criterion to select weak learners in boosting and encourages sparsity. A new penalty is introduced to promote the similarity of model sparsity structures across datasets. The proposed method has a intuitive formulation and is broadly applicable and computationally affordable. In numerical studies, we analyze right censored survival data under the accelerated failure time model. Simulation shows that the proposed method outperforms alternative boosting and penalization methods with more accurate marker identification. The analysis of three breast cancer prognosis datasets shows that the proposed method can identify marker sets with increased similarity across datasets and improved prediction performance.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  heterogeneity structure; integrative analysis; marker identification; model sparsity structure; sparse boosting

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27667129      PMCID: PMC5209260          DOI: 10.1002/sim.7138

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  15 in total

1.  Large-scale meta-analysis of cancer microarray data identifies common transcriptional profiles of neoplastic transformation and progression.

Authors:  Daniel R Rhodes; Jianjun Yu; K Shanker; Nandan Deshpande; Radhika Varambally; Debashis Ghosh; Terrence Barrette; Akhilesh Pandey; Arul M Chinnaiyan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-06-07       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Identification of cancer genomic markers via integrative sparse boosting.

Authors:  Yuan Huang; Jian Huang; Ben-Chang Shia; Shuangge Ma
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2011-10-31       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Assessing the dependence of sensitivity and specificity on prevalence in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jialiang Li; Jason P Fine
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2011-04-27       Impact factor: 5.899

4.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Integrative analysis of multiple cancer prognosis studies with gene expression measurements.

Authors:  Shuangge Ma; Jian Huang; Fengrong Wei; Yang Xie; Kuangnan Fang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Integrative Analysis of Cancer Diagnosis Studies with Composite Penalization.

Authors:  Jin Liu; Jian Huang; Shuangge Ma
Journal:  Scand Stat Theory Appl       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 1.396

7.  Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study.

Authors:  Christos Sotiriou; Soek-Ying Neo; Lisa M McShane; Edward L Korn; Philip M Long; Amir Jazaeri; Philippe Martiat; Steve B Fox; Adrian L Harris; Edison T Liu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-08-13       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Sparse group penalized integrative analysis of multiple cancer prognosis datasets.

Authors:  Jin Liu; Jian Huang; Yang Xie; Shuangge Ma
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.588

9.  Gene network-based cancer prognosis analysis with sparse boosting.

Authors:  Shuangge Ma; Yuan Huang; Jian Huang; Kuangnan Fang
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.588

10.  MetaQC: objective quality control and inclusion/exclusion criteria for genomic meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dongwan D Kang; Etienne Sibille; Naftali Kaminski; George C Tseng
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 16.971

View more
  6 in total

1.  Identification of cancer omics commonality and difference via community fusion.

Authors:  Yifan Sun; Yu Jiang; Yang Li; Shuangge Ma
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  An integrative sparse boosting analysis of cancer genomic commonality and difference.

Authors:  Yifan Sun; Zhengyang Sun; Yu Jiang; Yang Li; Shuangge Ma
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2019-07-07       Impact factor: 3.021

3.  Robust semiparametric gene-environment interaction analysis using sparse boosting.

Authors:  Mengyun Wu; Shuangge Ma
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Penalized integrative semiparametric interaction analysis for multiple genetic datasets.

Authors:  Yang Li; Rong Li; Cunjie Lin; Yichen Qin; Shuangge Ma
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Overlapping clustering of gene expression data using penalized weighted normalized cut.

Authors:  Sebastian J Teran Hidalgo; Tingyu Zhu; Mengyun Wu; Shuangge Ma
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 2.135

Review 6.  An Update on Statistical Boosting in Biomedicine.

Authors:  Andreas Mayr; Benjamin Hofner; Elisabeth Waldmann; Tobias Hepp; Sebastian Meyer; Olaf Gefeller
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 2.238

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.