ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2021
Large-scale benchmark study of survival prediction methods using multi-omics data.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review on Machine Learning Techniques for Survival Analysis in Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Survival prediction landscape: an in-depth systematic literature review on activities, methods, tools, diseases, and databases.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Pooled it
- Integration of artificial intelligence and multi-omics for precision medicine.Functional & integrative genomics · 2026Review
- When to Adjust for Multiple Testing: A Unifying Guiding Principle.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026Article
- Advancing AI for multi-omics and clinical data integration in basic and translational cancer research.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Graph informed biomarker discovery framework using transcriptomic machine learning for glioblastoma prognosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Toward trustworthy artificial intelligence in multi-omics: a review of reproducibility, stability, and interpretability.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- A large-scale neutral comparison study of survival models on low-dimensional data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Prognostic biomarker discovery in pancreatic cancer through hybrid ensemble feature selection and multi-omics data.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Integration of clinical and proteomic risk factors enhances prognostic modelling of incident vascular complications in type 2 diabetes.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2026Article
- Leveraging single-cell foundation models for accurate survival outcome prediction.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- A pan-cancer multi-omicFrontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Application of deep learning in prognostic prediction of non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Article
- DSCC: disease subtyping using spectral clustering and community detection from consensus networks.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- On "Confirmatory" Methodological Research in Statistics and Related Fields.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Two-stage sampling for better survival model performance.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Rethinking the Handling of Method Failure in Comparison Studies.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Integrating Machine Learning and Multi-Omics to Explore Neutrophil Heterogeneity.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- SurvBoard: standardized benchmarking for multi-omics cancer survival models.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multi-omics data, that is, datasets containing different types of high-dimensional molecular variables, are increasingly often generated for the investigation of various diseases. Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the usefulness of multi-omics data for the prediction of disease outcomes such as survival time. It is also unclear which methods are most appropriate to derive such prediction models. We aim to give some answers to these questions through a large-scale benchmark study using real data. Different prediction methods from machine learning and statistics were applied on 18 multi-omics cancer datasets (35 to 1000 observations, up to 100 000 variables) from the database 'The Cancer Genome Atlas' (TCGA). The considered outcome was the (censored) survival time. Eleven methods based on boosting, penalized regression and random forest were compared, comprising both methods that do and that do not take the group structure of the omics variables into account. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and a Cox model using only clinical variables were used as reference methods. The methods were compared using several repetitions of 5-fold cross-validation. Uno's C-index and the integrated Brier score served as performance metrics. The results indicate that methods taking into account the multi-omics structure have a slightly better prediction performance. Taking this structure into account can protect the predictive information in low-dimensional groups-especially clinical variables-from not being exploited during prediction. Moreover, only the block forest method outperformed the Cox model on average, and only slightly. This indicates, as a by-product of our study, that in the considered TCGA studies the utility of multi-omics data for prediction purposes was limited. Contact:moritz.herrmann@stat.uni-muenchen.de, +49 89 2180 3198 Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Briefings in Bioinformatics online. All analyses are reproducible using R code freely available on Github.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.