ReviewBioinformatics advances2026
A review of multi-omics integration techniques across five machine learning method families.
Review in Bioinformatics advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning and multi-omics technologies for precision cardiovascular medicine: advancing diagnosis, risk prediction, and therapeutic guidance.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Exposome influences: a multi-omics perspective on the combined toxic effects of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in Alzheimer's disease.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Multi-omics integration methods are now common in cancer studies, but results remain sensitive to design choices, including when fusion occurs, what is fused, and how missingness is handled. As a result, it is difficult to compare studies and determine which integration choices are most reliable for cross-cohort cancer analyses. Results: From a PRISMA-guided review of 30 studies (2020-2025), we find that graph-based or hybrid pipelines dominate, with deep learning as the next most common family, and survival prediction as the main use case. Method families tend to align with the task and time of fusion; graph-hybrid approaches favour early- to intermediate-stage fusion, while deep learning spans the three stages of fusion. Across studies, three recurring trade-offs emerge: early-intermediate fusion can stabilize high-dimensional inputs but is sensitive to modality imbalance; shared latent-space designs better preserve partially observed samples; and late fusion supports more stable subtype structure but makes feature attribution less direct. The main message is that integration works best when fusion choices match the data's noise, sparsity, and missingness, and when interpretability is built into the architecture rather than added later.
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.