Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2506.18479

Bayesian integrative factor analysis methods, with application in nutrition and genomics data

Abstract

High-dimensional data are crucial in biomedical research. Integrating such data from multiple studies is a critical process that relies on the choice of advanced statistical models, enhancing statistical power, reproducibility, and scientific insight compared to analyzing each study separately. Factor analysis (FA) is a core dimensionality reduction technique that models observed data through a small set of latent factors. Bayesian extensions of FA have recently emerged as powerful tools for multi-study integration, enabling researchers to disentangle shared biological signals from study-specific variability. In this tutorial, we provide a practical and comparative guide to five advanced Bayesian integrative factor models: Perturbed Factor Analysis (PFA), Bayesian Factor Regression with non-local spike-and-slab priors (MOM-SS), Subspace Factor Analysis (SUFA), Bayesian Multi-study Factor Analysis (BMSFA), and Bayesian Combinatorial Multi-study Factor Analysis (Tetris). To contextualize these methods, we also include two benchmark approaches: standard FA applied to pooled data (Stack FA) and FA applied separately to each study (Ind FA). We evaluate all methods through extensive simulations, assessing computational efficiency and accuracy in the estimation of loadings and number of factors. To bridge theory and practice, we present a full analytical workflow, with detailed R code, demonstrating how to apply these models to real-world datasets in nutrition and genomics. This tutorial is designed to guide applied researchers through the landscape of Bayesian integrative factor analysis, offering insights and tools for extracting interpretable, robust patterns from complex multi-source data. All code and resources are available at: https://github.com/Mavis-Liang/Bayesian_integrative_FA_tutorial

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mavis Liang, Blake Hansen, Alejandra Avalos-Pacheco, Roberta De Vito. 2025-06-23. Bayesian integrative factor analysis methods, with application in nutrition and genomics data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18479

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Auditing Bayesian Graph Alignment: Diagnostic Comparisons and Reference Failure

Bayesian graph alignment estimates correspondence probabilities, but convergence of an alignment-score trace need not imply accurate correspondence marginals. We audit this gap on 240 new exact graph pairs from four source families, 240 larger pairs with 20-100 vertices, and a separate 60-case exact implementation check. Under an explicit edge-flip likelihood, we compare three samplers and score, marginal, indicator, categorical, and classifier-based diagnostics. Marginal disagreement improves error discrimination over score R-hat for the exact informed sampler, but its improvement for vanilla local sampling is uncertain. Assignment-based R* and short indicator panels are competitive; no diagnostic dominates across samplers and endpoints. At larger sizes, diagnostics predict subsequent marginal changes, not posterior error, and classification performance depends on the drift threshold. Disjoint-window and held-out-chain checks attenuate but preserve positive associations. Only 22 of 240 original reference sets pass an agreement screen. On forty failure-selected cases, eightfold SMC particle escalation does not resolve disagreement, whereas additional rejuvenation helps. Longer informed runs remain unstable. An elementary feasible-alignment bound demonstrates severely unrepresentative SMC and informed-chain scores in concentrated 100-vertex cases, independently of approximate reference consensus. We also exhibit common-start chains with near-zero disagreement despite exact marginal error near .967. These results support assignment-sensitive auditing while identifying limits of finite budgets, diagnostic rankings, and reference agreement as evidence of accuracy.

stat.AP↗

GeoDose-CP: Graph-Local Conformal Inference for Continuous-Treatment Earth Observation

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

stat.AP↗

Interpreting relative utility for probabilistic predictions

At a fixed threshold, relative utility (RU) measures the net-benefit gain of a prediction model over the better of treat-all and treat-none relative to the corresponding gain under perfect outcome classification. We illustrate that RU equal to 1 therefore represents perfect outcome classification at that fixed threshold, not perfect probabilistic prediction. However, even when every predicted probability equals the true probability, observed RU can equal 0. In a simple constant-risk setting, this occurs with probability approaching 1 as the sample size increases. Consequently, the distance from observed RU to 1 should not in general be interpreted as improvement achievable by a better prediction for binary probabilities.

stat.AP↗