ReviewBMC genomics2025
A review on multi-omics integration for aiding study design of large scale TCGA cancer datasets.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in plant salt stress research: from predictive models to multi-omics integration.Journal of experimental botany · 2026Review
- Multi-omics integration in allergy, viral infections and asthma: a comprehensive analysis of bioinformatics tools.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- PySimi: a unified framework for similarity measure evaluation in spectral clustering with applications to omics data.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- T-SMmOTE: tweaked synthetic majority minority oversampling technique for data scarcity issue in multi omics studies.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Review
- Liver biopsy in the modern era: from traditional techniques to artificial intelligence and multi-omics integration.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Metabolic collusion driving immune evasion in cholangiocarcinoma: unmasking the dual control of the immuno-metabolic microenvironment.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
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
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
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.