Leave-one-patient-out-cross-validation (LopoCV) and quantification of predictive uncertainty

LH Leland S. Hu
LW Lujia Wang
AH Andrea Hawkins-Daarud
JE Jennifer M. Eschbacher
KS Kyle W. Singleton
PJ Pamela R. Jackson
KC Kamala Clark-Swanson
CS Christopher P. Sereduk
SP Sen Peng
PW Panwen Wang
JW Junwen Wang
LB Leslie C. Baxter
KS Kris A. Smith
GM Gina L. Mazza
AS Ashley M. Stokes
BB Bernard R. Bendok
RZ Richard S. Zimmerman
CK Chandan Krishna
AP Alyx B. Porter
MM Maciej M. Mrugala
JH Joseph M. Hoxworth
TW Teresa Wu
NT Nhan L. Tran
KS Kristin R. Swanson
JL Jing Li
request Request a Protocol
ask Ask a question
Favorite

To determine predictive accuracies for each GP model (without vs with Transductive Learning), we employed LopoCV. In this scheme, one randomly selected patient (and all of their respective biopsy samples) served as the test case, while the other remaining patients (and their biopsy data) served to train the model. Training consisted of fitting a GP regression to the entire training data set, and then using the trained GP regression model to predict all of the samples from the test patient case. The output from each GP model comprised a predictive distribution on each biopsy sample of the test patient, including a predictive mean and a predictive variance. We used the predictive mean as the point estimator for the CNV on the transformed scale, and used this to classify each biopsy sample as either EGFR amplified (CNV > 3.5) or EGFR non-amplified (CNV ≤ 3.5). This process was iterated until every patient served as the test case. Note that LopoCV in theory provides greater rigor compared to k-fold cross validation or leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV), which leaves out a single biopsy sample as the test case. LopoCV would likely better simulate clinical practice (i.e., the model is used on a per-patient basis, rather than on a per-sample basis). In addition to predictive mean, each GP model output also includes predictive variance for each sample, which allows for quantification of predictive uncertainty. Specifically, for each prediction on each biopsy, we tested the hypothesis that the sample belongs to the class predicted by the mean (H1) versus not (H0), using a standard one-sided z test. The p value of this test reflects the certainty of the prediction, such that smaller p values correspond with lower predictive uncertainty (i.e., greater certainty) for each sample classified by the model. We prioritized the lowest predictive uncertainty as those predictions with the lowest range of p values (p < 0.05). We also evaluated incremental ranges of p values (e.g., < 0.10; < 0.15, etc.) as gradations of progressively decreasing predictive uncertainty.

Do you have any questions about this protocol?

Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this article to respond.

post Post a Question
0 Q&A