Recent advances in experimental methods have enabled researchers to collect data on thousands of analytes simultaneously. This has led to correlational studies that associated molecular measurements with diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Liver, and Gastric Cancer. However, the use of thousands of biomarkers selected from the analytes is not practical for real-world medical diagnosis and is likely undesirable due to potentially formed spurious correlations. In this study, we evaluate $4$ different methods for biomarker selection and $4$ different machine learning (ML) classifiers for identifying correlations – evaluating $16$ approaches in all. We found that contemporary methods outperform previously reported logistic regression in cases where $3$ and $10$ biomarkers are permitted. When specificity is fixed at $0.9$, ML approaches produced a sensitivity of $0.240$ ($3$ biomarkers) and $0.520$ ($10$ biomarkers), while standard logistic regression provided a sensitivity of $0.000$ ($3$ biomarkers) and $0.040$ ($10$ biomarkers). We also noted that causal-based methods for biomarker selection proved to be the most performant when fewer biomarkers were permitted, while univariate feature selection was the most performant when a greater number of biomarkers were permitted.

Recent advances in experimental methods have enabled researchers to collect data on thousands of analytes (biological analytes) simultaneously (Rosado et al. [1], Topkaya et al. [2]). This has led to correlational studies that associated these molecular measurements with diseases such as Alzheimer’s (Blennow et al. [3]), Liver (Ahn Joseph C et al. [4]), and Gastric Cancer (Lin et al. [5]). However, it is generally considered undesirable to use thousands of biomarkers selected from the analytes for medical diagnosis for several reasons. First, large numbers of biomarkers increase the likelihood of spurious correlation. Second, the use of many biomarkers increases model complexity and hinders the interpretability of results. Further, from a practical standpoint, the use of fewer biomarkers is preferable from the standpoint of creating cost-effective diagnostic products.
As a result, previous studies have conducted two operations in tandem: the selection of candidate biomarkers thought to be associated with a given disease individually and the identification of correlations between the combination of selected candidate biomarkers and the target medical condition. The most commonly reported methodology in the literature has been logistic regression, often accompanied by a variant of univariate feature selection (Bursac et al. [6], Direkvand-Moghadam et al. [7], Islam et al. [8]). This paper looks to augment existing work by studying the effect of the feature selection method and model type. In particular, we examine causal-based feature selection (Kleinberg et al. [9]) and a variety of machine-learning approaches, including gradient-boosted decision trees and neural networks. In all, we study $16$ different combinations of feature selection and classification models in tests where the number of biomarkers $K$ is restricted to a set of values $1,3,4,10,15,30$ on a gastric cancer dataset that includes measurements from $3440$ biological analytes (Song et al. [10]). We perform a cross-validation study and report results on training and test sets as well as examine hyperparameter sensitivity for the causal-based approaches. We found that contemporary machine learning methods outperform previously reported logistic regression in these experiments. When specificity is fixed at $0.9$, ML approaches produced a sensitivity of $0.240$ (3 biomarkers) and $0.520$ (10 biomarkers), while standard logistic regression provided a sensitivity of $0.000$ (3 biomarkers) and $0.040$ (10 biomarkers).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: We first provide a brief overview of related work, a description of the gastric cancer dataset, and machine learning methods. This is followed by reporting of the experimental results on the gastric cancer dataset and associated discussion. Finally, we conclude by discussing our findings.

Machine learning models, such as logistic regression, have been utilized with biological data for association purposes. In (Islam et al. [8]), the correlation coefficients of three biomarkers: body temperature, heart rate, and probable blood glucose level, were evaluated and associated with malaria detection using logistic regression. Similarly, in (Direkvand-Moghadam et al. [7]), univariate logistic regression demonstrated a substantial association between female sexual dysfunction and biomarkers, such as age, gravidity, and menarche age. Additionally, in (Bursac et al. [6]), the application of feature selection prior to model training showed the potential to maintain confounding variables, especially when dealing with macro biological data sets. Note that none of this prior work conducts an analysis of various machine learning classifiers, such as gradient-boosted trees or neural networks with causal-based and feature selection methods.
More specifically, machine learning models paired with feature selection for disease detection have proved significantly beneficial. In (Sorino et al. [11]), numerous machine learning techniques similar to ours, such as random forest classifier and boosted tree classifier, with cross-validation were used to diagnose non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Similarly, in (Díaz Álvarez et al. [12]), a feature selection, evaluated on chi-squared statistic was paired with a Naive Bayes classifier to aid the diagnosis and classification of neuro-degenerative disorders. Moreover, vision-based machine learning techniques such as convolutional neural networks have been applied to a wide variety of medical diagnostic use cases (Yadav et al. [13], Shaban et al. [14], Heenaye-Mamode et al. [15], Lopez-Garnier et al. [16], Kundu et al. [17]). Such diagnosis based on imagery would be complementary to biomarker-based diagnosis. However, to our knowledge, the application of such techniques to the use of biomarkers, specifically proteins, for the purposes of medical diagnosis has not been studied in the literature. The concept of causal-based methods, such as the one apparent in our findings, has been used in a variety of medical applications (Kleinberg et al. [18]). For example, in (Richens et al. [19]), the application of causal machine learning effectively increased clinical accuracy from the top $48\%$ to the top $25\%$ of doctors. However, to date, such methods have not been combined with recent advances in biomarker experimentation (Kleinbaum et al. [20]) for medical diagnosis based on biomarker measurements.

The dataset (Song et al. [21]) used for the biomarker discovery contains information on $100$ samples, each of which is associated with a case or control indicating the presence or absence of gastric cancer. The dataset is balanced with $50$ samples labeled case and $50$ samples labeled control. The age and gender of the samples are matched between cases and controls. Each instance is represented by $3440$ corresponding molecular measurement values, which are used to assess the risk of gastric cancer and provide insight into the disease. The measurement values range from $0.00$ to $260.65$. Molecular measurements were noted with IgG and IgA antibodies against the same set of proteins. The dataset contains data on clinical features, antibody reactions against Helicobacter pylori proteins, and demographic variables. Using the Nucleic Acid Programmable Protein Array (NAPPA) technology, the study assessed humoral responses to $1527$ proteins or almost the whole H. pylori proteome. The total set of proteins nearly composes a complete H. pylori proteome. Measurement values were assessed on seropositivity. Seropositivity was defined as the median normalized intensity $2\leq$ on NAPPA. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the dataset.

For the training data, each sample has a vector of real values associated with each analyte measurement and a ground truth that indicates the actual presence of the disease to distinguish between gastric cancer patients from healthy controls.

We see the effects of ablating away causality measure with univariate feature selection in Table 2. We observe a higher AUC and consistent sensitivity values for the causal method as we decrease the number of biomarkers, and these benefits go away otherwise. This will be beneficial when applying this method to the industry considering the computational power and being less expensive as the method performs better with less number of biomarkers. This approach can also be applicable to similar domains for other disease prediction. Additionally, the experiments with the causal metric can be extended by adding a combinatorial way of picking the ranked causal biomarkers.

In this paper, we use a causality measure to select biomarkers paired with ML-based classifiers on a gastric cancer dataset for disease detection purposes. We pre-select biomarkers to reduce the number of biomarkers considered to be more practical, reduce overfitting, and to understand the causal effect of the set of biomarkers. With respect to $Sen@90$, and $Sen@80$, the XGB model with causality measure performed better when compared to the baseline for $3$ biomarkers and has a hike of $0.114$ on AUC. We found that approaches with the causal metric performed better when handling a smaller number of biomarkers, while conventional techniques like univariate feature selection performed better with a larger number of biomarkers. The causality measure compares co-occurring biomarkers, they could provide biological intuition enabling further empirical studies. We see evidence that this approach likely generalizes for the prediction of other diseases based on biomarkers, as our machine learning methods perform well across a variety of diseases.