Alexander Partin1,2, Thomas Brettin3,4, Yvonne A Evrard5, Yitan Zhu6,3, Hyunseung Yoo6,3, Fangfang Xia6,3, Songhao Jiang7, Austin Clyde6,7, Maulik Shukla6,3, Michael Fonstein8, James H Doroshow9, Rick L Stevens4,7. 1. Division of Data Science and Learning, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA. apartin@anl.gov. 2. University of Chicago Consortium for Advanced Science and Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. apartin@anl.gov. 3. University of Chicago Consortium for Advanced Science and Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Computing, Environment and Life Sciences, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA. 5. Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick, MD, USA. 6. Division of Data Science and Learning, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA. 7. Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 8. Biosciences Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA. 9. Division of Cancer Therapeutics and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motivated by the size and availability of cell line drug sensitivity data, researchers have been developing machine learning (ML) models for predicting drug response to advance cancer treatment. As drug sensitivity studies continue generating drug response data, a common question is whether the generalization performance of existing prediction models can be further improved with more training data. METHODS: We utilize empirical learning curves for evaluating and comparing the data scaling properties of two neural networks (NNs) and two gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) models trained on four cell line drug screening datasets. The learning curves are accurately fitted to a power law model, providing a framework for assessing the data scaling behavior of these models. RESULTS: The curves demonstrate that no single model dominates in terms of prediction performance across all datasets and training sizes, thus suggesting that the actual shape of these curves depends on the unique pair of an ML model and a dataset. The multi-input NN (mNN), in which gene expressions of cancer cells and molecular drug descriptors are input into separate subnetworks, outperforms a single-input NN (sNN), where the cell and drug features are concatenated for the input layer. In contrast, a GBDT with hyperparameter tuning exhibits superior performance as compared with both NNs at the lower range of training set sizes for two of the tested datasets, whereas the mNN consistently performs better at the higher range of training sizes. Moreover, the trajectory of the curves suggests that increasing the sample size is expected to further improve prediction scores of both NNs. These observations demonstrate the benefit of using learning curves to evaluate prediction models, providing a broader perspective on the overall data scaling characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: A fitted power law learning curve provides a forward-looking metric for analyzing prediction performance and can serve as a co-design tool to guide experimental biologists and computational scientists in the design of future experiments in prospective research studies.
BACKGROUND: Motivated by the size and availability of cell line drug sensitivity data, researchers have been developing machine learning (ML) models for predicting drug response to advance cancer treatment. As drug sensitivity studies continue generating drug response data, a common question is whether the generalization performance of existing prediction models can be further improved with more training data. METHODS: We utilize empirical learning curves for evaluating and comparing the data scaling properties of two neural networks (NNs) and two gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT) models trained on four cell line drug screening datasets. The learning curves are accurately fitted to a power law model, providing a framework for assessing the data scaling behavior of these models. RESULTS: The curves demonstrate that no single model dominates in terms of prediction performance across all datasets and training sizes, thus suggesting that the actual shape of these curves depends on the unique pair of an ML model and a dataset. The multi-input NN (mNN), in which gene expressions of cancer cells and molecular drug descriptors are input into separate subnetworks, outperforms a single-input NN (sNN), where the cell and drug features are concatenated for the input layer. In contrast, a GBDT with hyperparameter tuning exhibits superior performance as compared with both NNs at the lower range of training set sizes for two of the tested datasets, whereas the mNN consistently performs better at the higher range of training sizes. Moreover, the trajectory of the curves suggests that increasing the sample size is expected to further improve prediction scores of both NNs. These observations demonstrate the benefit of using learning curves to evaluate prediction models, providing a broader perspective on the overall data scaling characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: A fitted power law learning curve provides a forward-looking metric for analyzing prediction performance and can serve as a co-design tool to guide experimental biologists and computational scientists in the design of future experiments in prospective research studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cell line; Deep learning; Drug response prediction; Learning curve; Machine learning; Power law
Authors: James C Costello; Laura M Heiser; Elisabeth Georgii; Mehmet Gönen; Michael P Menden; Nicholas J Wang; Mukesh Bansal; Muhammad Ammad-ud-din; Petteri Hintsanen; Suleiman A Khan; John-Patrick Mpindi; Olli Kallioniemi; Antti Honkela; Tero Aittokallio; Krister Wennerberg; James J Collins; Dan Gallahan; Dinah Singer; Julio Saez-Rodriguez; Samuel Kaski; Joe W Gray; Gustavo Stolovitzky Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Brinton Seashore-Ludlow; Matthew G Rees; Jaime H Cheah; Murat Cokol; Edmund V Price; Matthew E Coletti; Victor Jones; Nicole E Bodycombe; Christian K Soule; Joshua Gould; Benjamin Alexander; Ava Li; Philip Montgomery; Mathias J Wawer; Nurdan Kuru; Joanne D Kotz; C Suk-Yee Hon; Benito Munoz; Ted Liefeld; Vlado Dančík; Joshua A Bittker; Michelle Palmer; James E Bradner; Alykhan F Shamji; Paul A Clemons; Stuart L Schreiber Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Ladislav Rampášek; Daniel Hidru; Petr Smirnov; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Anna Goldenberg Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Uri Ben-David; Benjamin Siranosian; Gavin Ha; Helen Tang; Yaara Oren; Kunihiko Hinohara; Craig A Strathdee; Joshua Dempster; Nicholas J Lyons; Robert Burns; Anwesha Nag; Guillaume Kugener; Beth Cimini; Peter Tsvetkov; Yosef E Maruvka; Ryan O'Rourke; Anthony Garrity; Andrew A Tubelli; Pratiti Bandopadhayay; Aviad Tsherniak; Francisca Vazquez; Bang Wong; Chet Birger; Mahmoud Ghandi; Aaron R Thorner; Joshua A Bittker; Matthew Meyerson; Gad Getz; Rameen Beroukhim; Todd R Golub Journal: Nature Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Yitan Zhu; Thomas Brettin; Yvonne A Evrard; Alexander Partin; Fangfang Xia; Maulik Shukla; Hyunseung Yoo; James H Doroshow; Rick L Stevens Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Fangfang Xia; Jonathan Allen; Prasanna Balaprakash; Thomas Brettin; Cristina Garcia-Cardona; Austin Clyde; Judith Cohn; James Doroshow; Xiaotian Duan; Veronika Dubinkina; Yvonne Evrard; Ya Ju Fan; Jason Gans; Stewart He; Pinyi Lu; Sergei Maslov; Alexander Partin; Maulik Shukla; Eric Stahlberg; Justin M Wozniak; Hyunseung Yoo; George Zaki; Yitan Zhu; Rick Stevens Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 11.622
Authors: Yitan Zhu; Thomas Brettin; Fangfang Xia; Alexander Partin; Maulik Shukla; Hyunseung Yoo; Yvonne A Evrard; James H Doroshow; Rick L Stevens Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 4.996