Comparative analysis of integrative classification methods for multi-omics data.

Recent advances in sequencing, mass spectrometry, and cytometry technologies have enabled researchers to collect multiple 'omics data types from a single sample. These large datasets have led to a growing consensus that a holistic approach is needed to identify new candidate biomarkers and unveil mechanisms underlying disease etiology, a key to precision medicine. While many reviews and benchmarks have been conducted on unsupervised approaches, their supervised counterparts have received less attention in the literature and no gold standard has emerged yet. In this work, we present a thorough comparison of a selection of six methods, representative of the main families of intermediate integrative approaches (matrix factorization, multiple kernel methods, ensemble learning, and graph-based methods). As non-integrative control, random forest was performed on concatenated and separated data types. Methods were evaluated for classification performance on both simulated and real-world datasets, the latter being carefully selected to cover different medical applications (infectious diseases, oncology, and vaccines) and data modalities. A total of 15 simulation scenarios were designed from the real-world datasets to explore a large and realistic parameter space (e.g. sample size, dimensionality, class imbalance, effect size). On real data, the method comparison showed that integrative approaches performed better or equally well than their non-integrative counterpart. By contrast, DIABLO and the four random forest alternatives outperform the others across the majority of simulation scenarios. The strengths and limitations of these methods are discussed in detail as well as guidelines for future applications.