ArticlePloS one2023
Integration of pan-cancer multi-omics data for novel mixed subgroup identification using machine learning methods.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond chromatin accessibility: bulk ATAC-seq as an integrative assay to portray genomes and epigenomes.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Algorithms and tools for data-driven omics integration to achieve multilayer biological insights: a narrative review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Multi-omics approaches for understanding gene-environment interactions in noncommunicable diseases: techniques, translation, and equity issues.Human genomics · 2025Review
- Computational models for pan-cancer classification based on multi-omics data.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Review
- Occlusion enhanced pan-cancer classification via deep learning.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and patients with tumors from different organs can share similar epigenetic and genetic alterations. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the novel subgroups of patients with similar molecular characteristics. It is possible to propose a better treatment strategy when the heterogeneity of the patient is accounted for during subgroup identification, irrespective of the tissue of origin. This work proposes a machine learning (ML) based pipeline for subgroup identification in pan-cancer. Here, mRNA, miRNA, DNA methylation, and protein expression features from pan-cancer samples were concatenated and non-linearly projected to a lower dimension using an ML algorithm. This data was then clustered to identify multi-omics-based novel subgroups. The clinical characterization of these ML subgroups indicated significant differences in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p-value<0.0001). The subgroups formed by the patients from different tumors shared similar molecular alterations in terms of immune microenvironment, mutation profile, and enriched pathways. Further, decision-level and feature-level fused classification models were built to identify the novel subgroups for unseen samples. Additionally, the classification models were used to obtain the class labels for the validation samples, and the molecular characteristics were verified. To summarize, this work identified novel ML subgroups using multi-omics data and showed that the patients with different tumor types could be similar molecularly. We also proposed and validated the classification models for subgroup identification. The proposed classification models can be used to identify the novel multi-omics subgroups, and the molecular characteristics of each subgroup can be used to design appropriate treatment regimen.
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.