IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0100335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Batch Effect Confounding Leads to Strong Bias in Performance Estimates Obtained by Cross-Validation

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotte Soneson
  • Sarah Gerster
  • Mauro Delorenzi

Abstract

Background: With the large amount of biological data that is currently publicly available, many investigators combine multiple data sets to increase the sample size and potentially also the power of their analyses. However, technical differences (“batch effects”) as well as differences in sample composition between the data sets may significantly affect the ability to draw generalizable conclusions from such studies. Focus: The current study focuses on the construction of classifiers, and the use of cross-validation to estimate their performance. In particular, we investigate the impact of batch effects and differences in sample composition between batches on the accuracy of the classification performance estimate obtained via cross-validation. The focus on estimation bias is a main difference compared to previous studies, which have mostly focused on the predictive performance and how it relates to the presence of batch effects. Data: We work on simulated data sets. To have realistic intensity distributions, we use real gene expression data as the basis for our simulation. Random samples from this expression matrix are selected and assigned to group 1 (e.g., ‘control’) or group 2 (e.g., ‘treated’). We introduce batch effects and select some features to be differentially expressed between the two groups. We consider several scenarios for our study, most importantly different levels of confounding between groups and batch effects. Methods: We focus on well-known classifiers: logistic regression, Support Vector Machines (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (kNN) and Random Forests (RF). Feature selection is performed with the Wilcoxon test or the lasso. Parameter tuning and feature selection, as well as the estimation of the prediction performance of each classifier, is performed within a nested cross-validation scheme. The estimated classification performance is then compared to what is obtained when applying the classifier to independent data.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotte Soneson & Sarah Gerster & Mauro Delorenzi, 2014. "Batch Effect Confounding Leads to Strong Bias in Performance Estimates Obtained by Cross-Validation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0100335
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100335
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100335&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0100335?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chao Chen & Kay Grennan & Judith Badner & Dandan Zhang & Elliot Gershon & Li Jin & Chunyu Liu, 2011. "Removing Batch Effects in Analysis of Expression Microarray Data: An Evaluation of Six Batch Adjustment Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Jeffrey T Leek & John D Storey, 2007. "Capturing Heterogeneity in Gene Expression Studies by Surrogate Variable Analysis," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(9), pages 1-12, September.
    3. Asa Ben-Hur & Cheng Soon Ong & Sören Sonnenburg & Bernhard Schölkopf & Gunnar Rätsch, 2008. "Support Vector Machines and Kernels for Computational Biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-10, October.
    4. Parker Hilary S. & Leek Jeffrey T., 2012. "The practical effect of batch on genomic prediction," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, April.
    5. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Addendum: Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(5), pages 768-768, November.
    6. Kim, Ji-Hyun, 2009. "Estimating classification error rate: Repeated cross-validation, repeated hold-out and bootstrap," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(11), pages 3735-3745, September.
    7. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(2), pages 301-320, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zemin Zheng & Jinchi Lv & Wei Lin, 2021. "Nonsparse Learning with Latent Variables," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 346-359, January.
    2. Aline Talhouk & Stefan Kommoss & Robertson Mackenzie & Martin Cheung & Samuel Leung & Derek S Chiu & Steve E Kalloger & David G Huntsman & Stephanie Chen & Maria Intermaggio & Jacek Gronwald & Fong C , 2016. "Single-Patient Molecular Testing with NanoString nCounter Data Using a Reference-Based Strategy for Batch Effect Correction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Gao Wang & Abhishek Sarkar & Peter Carbonetto & Matthew Stephens, 2020. "A simple new approach to variable selection in regression, with application to genetic fine mapping," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1273-1300, December.
    4. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    5. Oxana Babecka Kucharcukova & Jan Bruha, 2016. "Nowcasting the Czech Trade Balance," Working Papers 2016/11, Czech National Bank.
    6. Carstensen, Kai & Heinrich, Markus & Reif, Magnus & Wolters, Maik H., 2020. "Predicting ordinary and severe recessions with a three-state Markov-switching dynamic factor model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 829-850.
    7. Hou-Tai Chang & Ping-Huai Wang & Wei-Fang Chen & Chen-Ju Lin, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Early Lung Cancer with LDCT and Health Examinations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-12, April.
    8. Margherita Giuzio, 2017. "Genetic algorithm versus classical methods in sparse index tracking," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 243-256, November.
    9. Nicolaj N. Mühlbach, 2020. "Tree-based Synthetic Control Methods: Consequences of moving the US Embassy," CREATES Research Papers 2020-04, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    10. Wang, Qiao & Zhou, Wei & Cheng, Yonggang & Ma, Gang & Chang, Xiaolin & Miao, Yu & Chen, E, 2018. "Regularized moving least-square method and regularized improved interpolating moving least-square method with nonsingular moment matrices," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 325(C), pages 120-145.
    11. Dmitriy Drusvyatskiy & Adrian S. Lewis, 2018. "Error Bounds, Quadratic Growth, and Linear Convergence of Proximal Methods," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 919-948, August.
    12. Mkhadri, Abdallah & Ouhourane, Mohamed, 2013. "An extended variable inclusion and shrinkage algorithm for correlated variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 631-644.
    13. Lucian Belascu & Alexandra Horobet & Georgiana Vrinceanu & Consuela Popescu, 2021. "Performance Dissimilarities in European Union Manufacturing: The Effect of Ownership and Technological Intensity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    14. Candelon, B. & Hurlin, C. & Tokpavi, S., 2012. "Sampling error and double shrinkage estimation of minimum variance portfolios," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 511-527.
    15. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    16. Andrea Carriero & Todd E. Clark & Massimiliano Marcellino, 2022. "Specification Choices in Quantile Regression for Empirical Macroeconomics," Working Papers 22-25, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    17. Kim, Hyun Hak & Swanson, Norman R., 2018. "Mining big data using parsimonious factor, machine learning, variable selection and shrinkage methods," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 339-354.
    18. Shuichi Kawano, 2014. "Selection of tuning parameters in bridge regression models via Bayesian information criterion," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1207-1223, November.
    19. Yize Zhao & Matthias Chung & Brent A. Johnson & Carlos S. Moreno & Qi Long, 2016. "Hierarchical Feature Selection Incorporating Known and Novel Biological Information: Identifying Genomic Features Related to Prostate Cancer Recurrence," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(516), pages 1427-1439, October.
    20. Chuliá, Helena & Garrón, Ignacio & Uribe, Jorge M., 2024. "Daily growth at risk: Financial or real drivers? The answer is not always the same," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 762-776.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0100335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.