Exploring machine learning strategies for predicting cardiovascular disease risk factors from multi-omic data.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) classifiers are increasingly used for predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD) and related risk factors using omics data, although these outcomes often exhibit categorical nature and class imbalances. However, little is known about which ML classifier, omics data, or upstream dimension reduction strategy has the strongest influence on prediction quality in such settings. Our study aimed to illustrate and compare different machine learning strategies to predict CVD risk factors under different scenarios. METHODS: We compared the use of six ML classifiers in predicting CVD risk factors using blood-derived metabolomics, epigenetics and transcriptomics data. Upstream omic dimension reduction was performed using either unsupervised or semi-supervised autoencoders, whose downstream ML classifier performance we compared. CVD risk factors included systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements and ultrasound-based biomarkers of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD; E/e' ratio, E/A ratio, LAVI) collected from 1,249 Finnish participants, of which 80% were used for model fitting. We predicted individuals with low, high or average levels of CVD risk factors, the latter class being the most common. We constructed multi-omic predictions using a meta-learner that weighted single-omic predictions. Model performance comparisons were based on the F1 score. Finally, we investigated whether learned omic representations from pre-trained semi-supervised autoencoders could improve outcome prediction in an external cohort using transfer learning. RESULTS: Depending on the ML classifier or omic used, the quality of single-omic predictions varied. Multi-omics predictions outperformed single-omics predictions in most cases, particularly in the prediction of individuals with high or low CVD risk factor levels. Semi-supervised autoencoders improved downstream predictions compared to the use of unsupervised autoencoders. In addition, median gains in Area Under the Curve by transfer learning compared to modelling from scratch ranged from 0.09 to 0.14 and 0.07 to 0.11 units for transcriptomic and metabolomic data, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: By illustrating the use of different machine learning strategies in different scenarios, our study provides a platform for researchers to evaluate how the choice of omics, ML classifiers, and dimension reduction can influence the quality of CVD risk factor predictions.

MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy Introduces Grade Inflation and Overtreatment.

Purpose: The use of MRI-targeted biopsies has led to lower detection of Gleason Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer and increased detection of GG2 disease. Although this finding is generally attributed to improved sensitivity and specificity of MRI for aggressive cancers, it might also be explained by grade inflation. Our objective was to determine the likelihood of definitive treatment and risk of post-treatment recurrence for patients with GG2 cancer diagnosed using targeted biopsies relative to men with GG1 cancer diagnosed using systematic biopsies. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on a large tertiary centre registry (HUS Acamedic Datalake) to retrieve data on prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment, and cancer recurrence. We included patients with either GG1 with systematic biopsies (3317 men) or GG2 with targeted biopsies (554 men) from 1993 to 2019. We assessed the risk of curative treatment and recurrence after treatment. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were computed to assess treatment- and recurrence-free survival. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to assess the risk of posttreatment recurrence. Results: Patients with systematic biopsy detected GG1 cancer had a significantly longer median time-to-treatment (31 months) than those with targeted biopsy detected GG2 cancer (4 months, p<0.0001). The risk of recurrence after curative treatment was similar between groups with the upper bound of 95% CI, excluding an important difference (HR: 0.94, 95% CI [0.71-1.25], p=0.7). Conclusion: GG2 cancers detected by MRI-targeted biopsy are treated more aggressively than GG1 cancers detected by systematic biopsy, despite having similar oncologic risk. To prevent further overtreatment related to the MRI pathway, treatment guidelines from the pre-MRI era need to be updated to consider changes in the diagnostic pathway.