Bioinformatics AdvancesBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Optimizer's dilemma: optimization strongly influences model selection in transcriptomic prediction
Abstract
MotivationMost models can be fit to data using various optimization approaches. While model choice is frequently reported in machine-learning-based research, optimizers are not often noted. We applied two different implementations of LASSO logistic regression implemented in Pythons scikit-learn package, using two different optimization approaches (coordinate descent and stochastic gradient descent), to predict driver mutation presence or absence from gene expression across 84 pan-cancer driver genes. Across varying levels of regularization, we compared performance and model sparsity between optimizers. ResultsAfter model selection and tuning, we found that coordinate descent (implemented in the liblinear library) and SGD tended to perform comparably. liblinear models required more extensive tuning of regularization strength, performing best for high model sparsities (more nonzero coefficients), but did not require selection of a learning rate parameter. SGD models required tuning of the learning rate to perform well, but generally performed more robustly across different model sparsities as regularization strength decreased. Given these tradeoffs, we believe that the choice of optimizers should be clearly reported as a part of the model selection and validation process, to allow readers and reviewers to better understand the context in which results have been generated. Availability and implementationThe code used to carry out the analyses in this study is available at https://github.com/greenelab/pancancer-evaluation/tree/master/01_stratified_classification. Performance/regularization strength curves for all genes in the Vogelstein et al. 2013 dataset are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22728644.
- assay: bulk RNA-seq
- research focus: differential expression
- research focus: benchmarking
- approach: statistical model
- approach: machine learning (classical)
- Citations
- 4
- FWCI
- 0.54
- Field percentile
- top 44%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Benchmark of lasso-like penalties in the Cox model for TCGA datasets reveal improved performance with pre-filtering and wide differences between cancers
Rémy Jardillier, Dzenis Koça, … Laurent Guyon·BMC CancerPeer-reviewed·Oct 5, 2022
- OSCAR: Optimal subset cardinality regression using the L0-pseudonorm with applications to prognostic modelling of prostate cancer
Anni S. Halkola, Kaisa Joki, … Teemu D. Laajala·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Mar 10, 2023
- PReMS: Parallel Regularised Regression Model Search for sparse bio-signature discovery
Clive Hoggart·bioRxiv·Jun 27, 2018
- Logic models to predict continuous outputs based on binary inputs with an application to personalized cancer therapy
Theo Knijnenburg, Gunnar Klau, … Lodewyk Wessels·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Nov 23, 2016
- seagull: lasso, group lasso and sparse-group lasso regularisation for linear regression models via proximal gradient descent
Jan Klosa, Noah Simon, … Dörte Wittenburg·BMC BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Sep 15, 2020
- Hi-LASSO: High-performance Python and Apache spark packages for feature selection with high-dimensional data
Jongkwon Jo, Seungha Jung, … Mingon Kang·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Dec 1, 2022