Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40847282›Full record

ReviewBMC genomics2025

A review on multi-omics integration for aiding study design of large scale TCGA cancer datasets.

Eonyong Han, Hwijun Kwon, Inuk Jung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

3 authors.

Eonyong Han *School of Computer Science and Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Buk-gu, Daegu, 41566, Republic of Korea.
Hwijun Kwon *School of Computer Science and Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Buk-gu, Daegu, 41566, Republic of Korea.
Inuk JungSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Buk-gu, Daegu, 41566, Republic of Korea. inukjung@knu.ac.kr.

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Korean Government (MSIT) RS-2024-00440285This work was supported by the Korea National Institute of Health (KNIH) research project 2024-ER-0801-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid advancements in high-throughput sequencing technologies allow for detailed and accurate measurement of omics features within their biological context. The integration of different omics types creates heterogeneous datasets, presenting challenges in analysis due to variations in measurement units, sample numbers, and features. Currently, there is a lack of generalized guidelines for making decisions in multi-omics study design (MOSD), such as selecting an appropriate number of samples and features, type of preprocessing and integration for robust analysis results. We propose a suggestive guideline for MOSD, involving nine important factors: sample size, feature selection, preprocessing strategy, noise characterization, class balance, number of classes, cancer subtype combination, omics combination, and clinical features.

resultsTo assess the effectiveness of our proposed MOSD guidelines, we designed and conducted seven benchmark tests using 10 clustering methods on various TCGA cancer datasets with an objective of clustering cancer subtypes. The results indicated robust performance in terms of cancer subtype discrimination when adhering to the following criteria: 26 or more samples per class, selecting less than 10% of omics features, maintaining a sample balance under a 3:1 ratio, and keeping the noise level below 30%. Feature selection was particularly important, improving clustering performance by 34%.

conclusionThese findings provide evidence-based recommendations for MOSD, enabling researchers to optimize analytical approaches and enhance the reliability of results across cancer datasets. The proposed MOSD framework offers a suggestive guideline addressing both computational and biological factors for multi-omics data integration.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDatabases, GeneticGenomicsNeoplasmsCluster AnalysisHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMultiomicsIntegrationMachine learningMulti-omicsStudy design

Identifiers

PMID40847282
PMCPMC12372284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.