ArticleNature communications2026
Multi-omics integration predicts the incidence of 17 diseases in the UK Biobank.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- PEARL: integrative multi-omics classification and omics feature discovery via deep graph learning.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Multi-omics integration predicts the incidence of 17 diseases in the UK Biobank.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Recent advances in biomarkers for cardiac fibrosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multi-omics technologies, such as metabolomics and proteomics, offer deep molecular perspectives that could enhance risk prediction, but large-scale studies integrating both are scarce. Here we show the predictive values of these two omics across 17 incident diseases in 23,776 UK Biobank participants with complete baseline for 159 NMR-based metabolites and 2,923 Olink affinity-based proteins. We found that adding omics data significantly improved risk prediction for all 17 diseases compared to clinical predictors alone. Proteomics-only models generally outperformed metabolomics-only models for 16 of the 17 diseases, and integrating both omics added little prediction power over proteomics-only models. Furthermore, we identified key omics features, including both well-established (e.g., KLK3/PSA for prostate cancer) and potential novel ones (e.g., PRG3 for skin cancer). We further connected diseases with medication and socioeconomic factors through key proteins, highlighting the clinical utility of omics data for enhancing individual risk prediction, providing molecular insights into disease mechanisms, and potentially guiding future therapeutic development.
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.