Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42083645›Full record

ReviewBioinformatics advances2026

A review of multi-omics integration techniques across five machine learning method families.

Adedayo Olowolayemo, Amina Souag, Konstantinos Sirlantzis, Scott Turner, Cornelia Wilson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Adedayo OlowolayemoDepartment of Computing, AI and Cybersecurity, Canterbury Christ Church University, CT1 1QU, Canterbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8483-2606
Amina SouagDepartment of Computing, AI and Cybersecurity, Canterbury Christ Church University, CT1 1QU, Canterbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4139-5091
Konstantinos SirlantzisDepartment of Computing, AI and Cybersecurity, Canterbury Christ Church University, CT1 1QU, Canterbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-8880
Scott TurnerDepartment of Computing, AI and Cybersecurity, Canterbury Christ Church University, CT1 1QU, Canterbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2735-3220
Cornelia WilsonDepartment of Natural Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, CT1 1QU, Canterbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6584-6179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42083645
PMCPMC13135628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.