Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
ZENODOarrow_drop_down
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Grassmannian Geodesic Distance Predicts Cross-Cohort Classifier Degradation Under Analytical Heterogeneity, After Controlling for Source Classifier Quality

Authors: Tower, Elliot;

Grassmannian Geodesic Distance Predicts Cross-Cohort Classifier Degradation Under Analytical Heterogeneity, After Controlling for Source Classifier Quality

Abstract

Geodesic distance on the Grassmannian manifold Gr(k, d) between cohort-specific PCA subspaces, after partialing out source classifier quality, predicts the residual AUC gap when a classifier is transferred to a new cohort. Raw geodesic–gap correlations are null on all seven datasets because the AUC gap conflates source internal performance with distribution shift. The confound-control step is essential. The method is validated on a colorectal cancer microbiome meta-analysis (9 studies, 824 samples; partial rho = +0.61, clustered bootstrap 95% CI [−0.02, +0.80], 97% positive; Delta R^2 = +0.23) and on the QMDiab multi-biofluid metabolomics study (3 biofluids × 3 ethnicities, 356 participants; partial rho = +0.40, clustered CI [+0.04, +0.73]). Leave-one-study-out validation confirms out-of-sample utility (42% MAE reduction over baseline). QMDiab decomposition shows the signal reflects the contrast between cross-biofluid pairs (partial rho = −0.04) and within-biofluid cross-ethnicity pairs (partial rho = +0.14), consistent with the boundary-condition thesis rather than graded within-type prediction. Five additional datasets (IBD microbiome, SPIROMICS COPD, breast cancer GEO, TCGA-BRCA, MTBLS7260 metabolomics) yield null results, identifying interpretable boundary conditions: the method requires analytical heterogeneity between cohorts. Centralized platforms or shared microarray platforms produce null results even across independent study sites. A formal power analysis shows 41% power to detect the CRC effect at the effective sample size of 9 studies; 19 studies would be needed for 80% power. This deposit contains the PLOS ONE submission manuscript (LaTeX + PDF), cover letter, pre-registration document (frozen at commit 675290c before confirmatory analyses), confirmatory analysis scripts (power analysis, QMDiab decomposition), the full analysis codebase (Python), and all result files (JSON summaries, ordered-pair CSVs, figures) for all seven datasets. Raw data are publicly available from their respective repositories (curatedMetagenomicData, MetaboLights MTBLS59, GEO, TCGA) and are not included due to size.

Keywords

Principal Component Analysis, Models, Statistical, cross-cohort transfer, microbiome, analytics heterogeneity, distribution shift, Computational Biology, Reproducibility of Results, classifier degradation, metabolomics, Machine Learning, Cohort Studies, partial correlation, Grassmannian manifold, Metabolomics, Colorectal Neoplasms, geodesic distance, PCA subspaces

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!