Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36199022›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022

Benchmark study of feature selection strategies for multi-omics data.

Yingxia Li, Ulrich Mansmann, Shangming Du, Roman Hornung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Emerging applications of feature selection in osteoporosis research: from biomarker discovery to clinical decision support.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2025
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Yingxia LiInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. yingxiali@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4501-5834
Ulrich MansmannInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9955-8906
Shangming DuInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6876-7783
Roman HornungInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6036-1495

Funding

the China Scholarship Council CSC, No. 201809505004the German Science Foundation DFG-Einzelförderung HO6422/1-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the last few years, multi-omics data, that is, datasets containing different types of high-dimensional molecular variables for the same samples, have become increasingly available. To date, several comparison studies focused on feature selection methods for omics data, but to our knowledge, none compared these methods for the special case of multi-omics data. Given that these data have specific structures that differentiate them from single-omics data, it is unclear whether different feature selection strategies may be optimal for such data. In this paper, using 15 cancer multi-omics datasets we compared four filter methods, two embedded methods, and two wrapper methods with respect to their performance in the prediction of a binary outcome in several situations that may affect the prediction results. As classifiers, we used support vector machines and random forests. The methods were compared using repeated fivefold cross-validation. The accuracy, the AUC, and the Brier score served as performance metrics.

resultsThe results suggested that, first, the chosen number of selected features affects the predictive performance for many feature selection methods but not all. Second, whether the features were selected by data type or from all data types concurrently did not considerably affect the predictive performance, but for some methods, concurrent selection took more time. Third, regardless of which performance measure was considered, the feature selection methods mRMR, the permutation importance of random forests, and the Lasso tended to outperform the other considered methods. Here, mRMR and the permutation importance of random forests already delivered strong predictive performance when considering only a few selected features. Finally, the wrapper methods were computationally much more expensive than the filter and embedded methods.

conclusionsWe recommend the permutation importance of random forests and the filter method mRMR for feature selection using multi-omics data, where, however, mRMR is considerably more computationally costly.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingNeoplasmsHumansSupport Vector MachineBenchmarkClassificationFeature selectionMulti-omics dataTCGA

Identifiers

PMID36199022
PMCPMC9533501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.