Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32823283›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2021

Large-scale benchmark study of survival prediction methods using multi-omics data.

Moritz Herrmann, Philipp Probst, Roman Hornung, Vindi Jurinovic, Anne-Laure Boulesteix

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. When to Adjust for Multiple Testing: A Unifying Guiding Principle.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A pan-cancer multi-omicFrontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Two-stage sampling for better survival model performance.BMC medical research methodology · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Moritz HerrmannDepartment of Statistics, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, 80539, Germany.
Philipp ProbstInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, 81377, Germany.
Roman HornungInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, 81377, Germany.
Vindi JurinovicInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, 81377, Germany.
Anne-Laure BoulesteixInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, 81377, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BenchmarkingFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleNeoplasmsProportional Hazards ModelsSurvival Analysisbenchmarkmachine learningmulti-omics dataprediction modelsstatisticssurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID32823283
PMCPMC8138887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.