Development of an absolute assignment predictor for triple-negative breast cancer subtyping using machine learning approaches

Ben Azzouz, F.; Michel, B.; Lasla, H.; Gouraud, W.; Francois, A.-F.; Girka, F.; Lecointre, T.; Guerin-Charbonnel, C.; Juin, P. P.; Campone, M.; Jezequel, P.

doi:10.1101/2020.06.02.129544

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.06.02.129544

Development of an absolute assignment predictor for triple-negative breast cancer subtyping using machine learning approaches

Ben Azzouz, F.·Michel, B.·Lasla, H.·Gouraud, W.·Francois, A.-F.·Girka, F.·Lecointre, T.·Guerin-Charbonnel, C.·Juin, P. P.·Campone, M.·Jezequel, P.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) heterogeneity represents one of the main impediment to precision medicine for this disease. Recent concordant transcriptomics studies have shown that TNBC could be splitted into at least three subtypes with potential therapeutic implications. Although, a few studies have been done to predict TNBC subtype by means of transcriptomics data, subtyping was partially sensitive and limited by batch effect and dependence to a given dataset, which may penalize the switch to routine diagnostic testing. Therefore, we sought to build an absolute predictor (i.e. intra-patient diagnosis) based on machine learning algorithm with a limited number of probes. To this end, we started by introducing probe binary comparison for each patient (indicators). We based predictive analysis on this transformed data. Probe selection was first performed by combining both filter and wrapper methods for variable selection using cross validation. We thus tested three prediction models (random forest, gradient boosting [GB] and extreme gradient boosting) using this optimal subset of indicators as inputs. Nested cross-validation allowed us to consistently choose the best model. Results showed that the 50 selected indicators highlighted biological characteristics associated with each TNBC subtype. The GB based on this subset of indicators has better performances as compared to the other models.

Source connections

Published article ↗

Explore related subjects

bioinformatics Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ben Azzouz, F., Michel, B., Lasla, H., Gouraud, W., Francois, A.-F., Girka, F., Lecointre, T., Guerin-Charbonnel, C., Juin, P. P., Campone, M., Jezequel, P.. 2020-06-03. Development of an absolute assignment predictor for triple-negative breast cancer subtyping using machine learning approaches. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.02.129544

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Accelerating discovery and integration from RNA to Protein with R2T2P

Integrating transcriptomics and proteomics data remains an unmet challenge in the post-genomics era, discouraging researchers from pursuing integrative approaches to molecular biology research. Leveraging the power of translation profiling, we present RNA to Translation to Protein (R2T2P), a computational platform integrating genome-guided transcriptome assembly with identification of translation and proteins, including a tailored differential analysis framework and support for multiple reference transcriptomes. We applied R2T2P to investigate a cellular model of facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD), where ectopic expression of the DUX4 retrogene in skeletal muscle triggers significant alterations in transcription and RNA metabolism. We uncovered hundreds of uncharacterized, highly overexpressed RNAs, including antisense and alternative transcripts, and quantified their contribution to translatome and proteome. Re-analysis of expression datasets from patient-derived myotubes and muscle biopsies validated this alternative transcriptome in FSHD patients, adding a reservoir of bona-fide novel molecular actors in a rare disease. Available at https://github.com/nfdata-omics/R2T2P/, R2T2P is a flexible and powerful workflow in modern integrative biology.

bioinformatics↗

bioRxiv2026

MorphoANOVA: Dissecting Histology-Gene Expression Relationships in Spatial Transcriptomics

Spatial transcriptomics (ST) measures the expression of hundreds to thousands of genes within tissue architecture, often accompanied by histology images. However, it remains challenging to systematically characterize which genes exhibit associations with tissue morphology, whether these associations vary spatially, and which genes show additional spatial expression patterns beyond those captured by morphology. Here we introduce MorphoANOVA, a gene-wise statistical framework for characterizing morphology--expression relationships across genes measured by ST. Using nested spatially varying coefficient models and sequential ANOVA, MorphoANOVA assesses slide-wide associations with an H\&E-derived morphology feature, location-specific changes in these associations, and additional spatial variation after accounting for the selected feature. The resulting statistics enable gene prioritization and pathway enrichment analysis, while spatial component maps support the interpretation of individual genes. Simulations demonstrate MorphoANOVA's ability to distinguish the modeled components and recover their spatial patterns. Applications to human cortex and breast cancer identify biological programs associated with different morphology--expression patterns and reveal distinct relationships with cell composition. Across three HER2-positive breast cancer patients, invasive-cancer marker genes consistently exhibit stronger evidence of location-specific morphology associations. MorphoANOVA thus provides a framework for systematically interpreting spatial gene-expression patterns in relation to tissue morphology.

bioinformatics↗

bioRxiv2026

Evaluation effects can rival reported concordance gains in cross-cancer survival prediction

Studies of cross-cancer learning for survival prediction from tumour omics have reported concordance gains of 0.020 and 0.045, but how such gains compare with evaluation effects remains unclear. We examined these effects across 13 TCGA cancers (5,761 patients, 1,526 disease-specific deaths), using five repeats of five-fold cross-validation and paired bootstrap intervals. When model selection did not use test data, our borrowing model gained 0.009 (95% interval 0.001 to 0.016) over its target-fitted reference when cancers received equal weight (post hoc). Random-effects pooling gave a gain of 0.002 (-0.002 to 0.006), with most weight assigned to cancers where the model made little use of the pretrained score. Choosing the fusion weight on test splits raised the apparent equal-weight gain to 0.017. We reimplemented a published method, VAECox, which showed no pretraining gain over random initialisation at the last or validation-selected training step. Choosing each network's best test step, as the published code does, raised concordance by 0.03 to 0.05 across the 13-cancer and ten-cancer overall-survival settings, but barely changed the difference between networks. In a constructed post hoc experiment, choosing the best test step only for the pretrained network changed the equal-weight mean difference from -0.004 to +0.045 (+0.035 to +0.054). Across seven multi-omics comparisons, estimates from single five-fold runs differed from their cancer's five-run mean by at least 0.02 in 11% to 42% of runs. Concordance was about 0.02 lower at held-out tissue source sites. Interpreting a reported gain therefore requires each model's selection rule, variation across repeated partitions, the weighting of cancers and the evaluation population.

bioinformatics↗