Paper detail

Detecting Batch Heterogeneity via Likelihood Clustering

Batch effects represent a major confounder in genomic diagnostics. In copy number variant (CNV) detection from NGS, many algorithms compare read depth between test samples and a reference sample, assuming they are process-matched. When this assumption is violated, with causes ranging from reagent lot changes to multi-site processing, the reference becomes inappropriate, introducing false CNV calls or masking true pathogenic variants. Detecting such heterogeneity before downstream analysis is critical for reliable clinical interpretation. Existing batch effect detection methods either cluster samples based on raw features, risking conflation of biological signal with technical variation, or require known batch labels that are frequently unavailable. We introduce a method that addresses both limitations by clustering samples according to their Bayesian model evidence. The central insight is that evidence quantifies compatibility between data and model assumptions, technical artifacts violate assumptions and reduce evidence, whereas biological variation, including CNV status, is anticipated by the model and yields high evidence. This asymmetry provides a discriminative signal that separates batch effects from biology. We formalize heterogeneity detection as a likelihood ratio test for mixture structure in evidence space, using parametric bootstrap calibration to ensure conservative false positive rates. We validate our approach on synthetic data demonstrating proper Type I error control, three clinical targeted sequencing panels (liquid biopsy, BRCA, and thalassemia) exhibiting distinct batch effect mechanisms, and mouse electrophysiology recordings demonstrating cross-modality generalization. Our method achieves superior clustering accuracy compared to standard correlation-based and dimensionality-reduction approaches while maintaining the conservativeness required for clinical usage.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.