ArticleBMC bioinformatics2025
Statistical modelling of an outcome variable with integrated multi-omics.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn studies that aim to model the relationship between an outcome variable and multiple omics datasets, it is often desirable to reduce the dimensionality of these datasets or to represent one omics dataset in terms of another. Several approaches exist for this purpose, including univariate methods such as polygenic scores, and multivariate methods. Multivariate approaches offer advantages by producing lower-dimensional integrative scores, capturing joint structures across datasets, and filtering out dataset-specific noise. In this paper, we describe one univariate and two multivariate methods, and evaluate their performance through simulations involving two correlated multivariate normally distributed omics datasets, as well as a combination of one multivariate normal and one fixed categorical dataset.
resultsWe assess method performance using the root mean squared error (RMSE) when modelling the outcome variable as a function of the reduced omics representations. Multivariate methods generally perform well, particularly when a slightly higher number of components is used for integration. They outperform the univariate method in scenarios involving two normally distributed omics datasets and perform comparably in settings with one normal and one categorical dataset. In real data applications, including two metabolomics datasets from TwinsUK and a metabolomics-genetic dataset from ORCADES, all methods show similar performance in modelling body mass index.
conclusionsMultivariate methods provide a valuable framework for summarizing multi-omics datasets into low-dimensional components suitable for outcome modelling. Even in the presence of non-normal data, these methods offer a promising alternative to high-dimensional univariate approaches.
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.