Evidence Hub

Considerations of automated machine learning in clinical metabolic profiling: Altered homocysteine plasma concentration associated with metformin exposure

Alena Orlenko, Jason H. Moore, Patryk Orzechowski, Randal S. Olson, Junmei Cairns, Pedro J. Caraballo, Richard M. Weinshilboum, Liewei Wang et al.

Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2018 (Vol. 23), 2017

Abstract

With the maturation of metabolomics science and proliferation of biobanks, clinical metabolic profiling is an increasingly opportunistic frontier for advancing translational clinical research. Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) approaches provide exciting opportunity to guide feature selection in agnostic metabolic profiling endeavors, where potentially thousands of independent data points must be evaluated. In previous research, AutoML using high-dimensional data of varying types has been demonstrably robust, outperforming traditional approaches. However, considerations for application in clinical metabolic profiling remain to be evaluated. Particularly, regarding the robustness of AutoML to identify and adjust for common clinical confounders. In this study, we present a focused case study regarding AutoML considerations for using the Tree-Based Optimization Tool (TPOT) in metabolic profiling of exposure to metformin in a biobank cohort. First, we propose a tandem rank-accuracy measure to guide agnostic feature selection and corresponding threshold determination in clinical metabolic profiling endeavors. Second, while AutoML, using default parameters, demonstrated potential to lack sensitivity to low-effect confounding clinical covariates, we demonstrated residual training and adjustment of metabolite features as an easily applicable approach to ensure AutoML adjustment for potential confounding characteristics. Finally, we present increased homocysteine with long-term…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free