BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Giovanni Parmigiani

Giovanni Parmigiani appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
ApplicationsMethodologyMachine Learningmath.STQuantitative MethodsStatistics Theory

Catalog footprint

What is connected

10works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

10 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Multi-Study Boosting: Theoretical Considerations for Merging vs. Ensembling

Cross-study replicability is a powerful model evaluation criterion that emphasizes generalizability of predictions. When training cross-study replicable prediction models, it is critical to decide between merging and treating the studies separately. We study boosting algorithms in the presence of potential heterogeneity in predictor-outcome relationships across studies and compare two multi-study learning strategies: 1) merging all the studies and training a single model, and 2) multi-study ensembling, which involves training a separate model on each study and ensembling the resulting predictions. In the regression setting, we provide theoretical guidelines based on an analytical transition point to determine whether it is more beneficial to merge or to ensemble for boosting with linear learners. In addition, we characterize a bias-variance decomposition of estimation error for boosting with component-wise linear learners. We verify the theoretical transition point result in simulation and illustrate how it can guide the decision on merging vs. ensembling in an application to breast cancer gene expression data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Statistical methods for Mendelian models with multiple genes and cancers

Risk evaluation to identify individuals who are at greater risk of cancer as a result of heritable pathogenic variants is a valuable component of individualized clinical management. Using principles of Mendelian genetics, Bayesian probability theory, and variant-specific knowledge, Mendelian models derive the probability of carrying a pathogenic variant and developing cancer in the future, based on family history. Existing Mendelian models are widely employed, but are generally limited to specific genes and syndromes. However, the upsurge of multi-gene panel germline testing has spurred the discovery of many new gene-cancer associations that are not presently accounted for in these models. We have developed PanelPRO, a flexible, efficient Mendelian risk prediction framework that can incorporate an arbitrary number of genes and cancers, overcoming the computational challenges that arise because of the increased model complexity. We implement an eleven-gene, eleven-cancer model, the largest Mendelian model created thus far, based on this framework. Using simulations and a clinical cohort with germline panel testing data, we evaluate model performance, validate the reverse-compatibility of our approach with existing Mendelian models, and illustrate its usage. Our implementation is freely available for research use in the PanelPRO R package.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Bayesian Combinatorial Multi-Study Factor Analysis

Analyzing multiple studies allows leveraging data from a range of sources and populations, but until recently, there have been limited methodologies to approach the joint unsupervised analysis of multiple high-dimensional studies. A recent method, Bayesian Multi-Study Factor Analysis (BMSFA), identifies latent factors common to all studies, as well as latent factors specific to individual studies. However, BMSFA does not allow for partially shared factors, i.e. latent factors shared by more than one but less than all studies. We extend BMSFA by introducing a new method, Tetris, for Bayesian combinatorial multi-study factor analysis, which identifies latent factors that can be shared by any combination of studies. We model the subsets of studies that share latent factors with an Indian Buffet Process. We test our method with an extensive range of simulations, and showcase its utility not only in dimension reduction but also in covariance estimation. Finally, we apply Tetris to high-dimensional gene expression datasets to identify patterns in breast cancer gene expression, both within and across known classes defined by germline mutations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Combining Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models

Accurate risk stratification is key to reducing cancer morbidity through targeted screening and preventative interventions. Numerous breast cancer risk prediction models have been developed, but they often give predictions with conflicting clinical implications. Integrating information from different models may improve the accuracy of risk predictions, which would be valuable for both clinicians and patients. BRCAPRO and BCRAT are two widely used models based on largely complementary sets of risk factors. BRCAPRO is a Bayesian model that uses detailed family history information to estimate the probability of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, as well as future risk of breast and ovarian cancer, based on mutation prevalence and penetrance (age-specific probability of developing cancer given genotype). BCRAT uses a relative hazard model based on first-degree family history and non-genetic risk factors. We consider two approaches for combining BRCAPRO and BCRAT: 1) modifying the penetrance functions in BRCAPRO using relative hazard estimates from BCRAT, and 2) training an ensemble model that takes as input BRCAPRO and BCRAT predictions. We show that the combination models achieve performance gains over BRCAPRO and BCRAT in simulations and data from the Cancer Genetics Network.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Representation via Representations: Domain Generalization via Adversarially Learned Invariant Representations

We investigate the power of censoring techniques, first developed for learning {\em fair representations}, to address domain generalization. We examine {\em adversarial} censoring techniques for learning invariant representations from multiple "studies" (or domains), where each study is drawn according to a distribution on domains. The mapping is used at test time to classify instances from a new domain. In many contexts, such as medical forecasting, domain generalization from studies in populous areas (where data are plentiful), to geographically remote populations (for which no training data exist) provides fairness of a different flavor, not anticipated in previous work on algorithmic fairness. We study an adversarial loss function for $k$ domains and precisely characterize its limiting behavior as $k$ grows, formalizing and proving the intuition, backed by experiments, that observing data from a larger number of domains helps. The limiting results are accompanied by non-asymptotic learning-theoretic bounds. Furthermore, we obtain sufficient conditions for good worst-case prediction performance of our algorithm on previously unseen domains. Finally, we decompose our mappings into two components and provide a complete characterization of invariance in terms of this decomposition. To our knowledge, our results provide the first formal guarantees of these kinds for adversarial invariant domain generalization.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Logistic push: a regression framework for partial AUC optimization

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is often used to evaluate the performance of clinical prediction models. Recently, a more refined strategy has been proposed to examine a partial area under the curve (pAUC), which can account for differing costs associated with false negative versus false positive results. Such consideration can substantially increase the clinical utility of prediction models depending on the clinical question. Properties of the pAUC estimator create significant challenges for pAUC-optimal marker selection and model building. As such, current approaches towards these aims can be complex and computationally intensive. We present a simpler method based on weighted logistic regressions. We refer to our strategy as logistic push, due to shared heuristics with the ranking algorithm P-norm push. Logistic push is particularly useful in the high-dimensional setting, where fast and broadly available algorithms for fitting penalized regressions can be used for both marker selection and model fitting.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Bayesian nonparametric cross-study validation of prediction methods

We consider comparisons of statistical learning algorithms using multiple data sets, via leave-one-in cross-study validation: each of the algorithms is trained on one data set; the resulting model is then validated on each remaining data set. This poses two statistical challenges that need to be addressed simultaneously. The first is the assessment of study heterogeneity, with the aim of identifying a subset of studies within which algorithm comparisons can be reliably carried out. The second is the comparison of algorithms using the ensemble of data sets. We address both problems by integrating clustering and model comparison. We formulate a Bayesian model for the array of cross-study validation statistics, which defines clusters of studies with similar properties and provides the basis for meaningful algorithm comparison in the presence of study heterogeneity. We illustrate our approach through simulations involving studies with varying severity of systematic errors, and in the context of medical prognosis for patients diagnosed with cancer, using high-throughput measurements of the transcriptional activity of the tumor's genes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Generalized Quantile Treatment Effect: A Flexible Bayesian Approach Using Quantile Ratio Smoothing

We propose a new general approach for estimating the effect of a binary treatment on a continuous and potentially highly skewed response variable, the generalized quantile treatment effect (GQTE). The GQTE is defined as the difference between a function of the quantiles under the two treatment conditions. As such, it represents a generalization over the standard approaches typically used for estimating a treatment effect (i.e., the average treatment effect and the quantile treatment effect) because it allows the comparison of any arbitrary characteristic of the outcome's distribution under the two treatments. Following Dominici et al. (2005), we assume that a pre-specified transformation of the two quantiles is modeled as a smooth function of the percentiles. This assumption allows us to link the two quantile functions and thus to borrow information from one distribution to the other. The main theoretical contribution we provide is the analytical derivation of a closed form expression for the likelihood of the model. Exploiting this result we propose a novel Bayesian inferential methodology for the GQTE. We show some finite sample properties of our approach through a simulation study which confirms that in some cases it performs better than other nonparametric methods. As an illustration we finally apply our methodology to the 1987 National Medicare Expenditure Survey data to estimate the difference in the single hospitalization medical cost distributions between cases (i.e., subjects affected by smoking attributable diseases) and controls.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Modeling dependent gene expression

In this paper we propose a Bayesian approach for inference about dependence of high throughput gene expression. Our goals are to use prior knowledge about pathways to anchor inference about dependence among genes; to account for this dependence while making inferences about differences in mean expression across phenotypes; and to explore differences in the dependence itself across phenotypes. Useful features of the proposed approach are a model-based parsimonious representation of expression as an ordinal outcome, a novel and flexible representation of prior information on the nature of dependencies, and the use of a coherent probability model over both the structure and strength of the dependencies of interest. We evaluate our approach through simulations and in the analysis of data on expression of genes in the Complement and Coagulation Cascade pathway in ovarian cancer.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

False discovery rates in somatic mutation studies of cancer

The purpose of cancer genome sequencing studies is to determine the nature and types of alterations present in a typical cancer and to discover genes mutated at high frequencies. In this article we discuss statistical methods for the analysis of somatic mutation frequency data generated in these studies. We place special emphasis on a two-stage study design introduced by Sjöblom et al. [Science 314 (2006) 268--274]. In this context, we describe and compare statistical methods for constructing scores that can be used to prioritize candidate genes for further investigation and to assess the statistical significance of the candidates thus identified. Controversy has surrounded the reliability of the false discovery rates estimates provided by the approximations used in early cancer genome studies. To address these, we develop a semiparametric Bayesian model that provides an accurate fit to the data. We use this model to generate a large collection of realistic scenarios, and evaluate alternative approaches on this collection. Our assessment is impartial in that the model used for generating data is not used by any of the approaches compared. And is objective, in that the scenarios are generated by a model that fits data. Our results quantify the conservative control of the false discovery rate with the Benjamini and Hockberg method compared to the empirical Bayes approach and the multiple testing method proposed in Storey [J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 64 (2002) 479--498]. Simulation results also show a negligible departure from the target false discovery rate for the methodology used in Sjöblom et al. [Science 314 (2006) 268--274].

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access