Combining Bayesian and Frequentist Inference for Laboratory-Specific Performance Guarantees in Copy Number Variation Detection

Targeted amplicon panels are widely used in oncology diagnostics, but providing per-gene performance guarantees for copy number variant (CNV) detection remains challenging due to amplification artifacts, process-mismatch heterogeneity, and limited validation sample sizes. While Bayesian CNV callers naturally quantify per-sample uncertainty, translating this into the frequentist population-level guarantees required for clinical validation, coverage rates, false-positive bounds, and minimum detectable copy-number changes, is a fundamentally different inferential problem. We show empirically that even robust Bayesian credible intervals, including coarsened posteriors and sandwich-adjusted intervals, are severely miscalibrated on panels with small amplicon counts per gene. To address this, we propose a hybrid framework that evaluates Bayesian posterior functionals on validation samples and models the resulting squared losses with a Gamma distribution, yielding tolerance intervals with valid frequentist coverage. Three components make the method practical under real-world constraints: (1) imputation that removes the influence of true CNV-positive samples without requiring known ground truth, (2) regularization to address small sample variability, and (3) evidence-based stratification on the log model evidence to accommodate non-exchangeable noise profiles arising from process mismatch. Evaluated on two targeted amplicon panels using leave-one-out cross-validation, the proposed method achieves single-digit mean absolute coverage error across all genes under both process-matched and unmatched conditions, whereas Bayesian comparators exhibit mean absolute errors exceeding 60\% on clinically relevant genes such as ERBB2.

Detecting Batch Heterogeneity via Likelihood Clustering

Batch effects represent a major confounder in genomic diagnostics. In copy number variant (CNV) detection from NGS, many algorithms compare read depth between test samples and a reference sample, assuming they are process-matched. When this assumption is violated, with causes ranging from reagent lot changes to multi-site processing, the reference becomes inappropriate, introducing false CNV calls or masking true pathogenic variants. Detecting such heterogeneity before downstream analysis is critical for reliable clinical interpretation. Existing batch effect detection methods either cluster samples based on raw features, risking conflation of biological signal with technical variation, or require known batch labels that are frequently unavailable. We introduce a method that addresses both limitations by clustering samples according to their Bayesian model evidence. The central insight is that evidence quantifies compatibility between data and model assumptions, technical artifacts violate assumptions and reduce evidence, whereas biological variation, including CNV status, is anticipated by the model and yields high evidence. This asymmetry provides a discriminative signal that separates batch effects from biology. We formalize heterogeneity detection as a likelihood ratio test for mixture structure in evidence space, using parametric bootstrap calibration to ensure conservative false positive rates. We validate our approach on synthetic data demonstrating proper Type I error control, three clinical targeted sequencing panels (liquid biopsy, BRCA, and thalassemia) exhibiting distinct batch effect mechanisms, and mouse electrophysiology recordings demonstrating cross-modality generalization. Our method achieves superior clustering accuracy compared to standard correlation-based and dimensionality-reduction approaches while maintaining the conservativeness required for clinical usage.