ArticleCurrent issues in molecular biology2026
A Systematic Machine Learning Framework for Evaluating and Ranking Omics Layers in Cancer Drug Response Prediction.
Article in Current issues in molecular biology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study introduces a top-down framework for evaluating the utility of multi-omics features to predict the response of 309 drugs in cancer cell lines. This was done by taking a multi-omics approach where data from proteomic, transcriptomic, genomic, metabolomic, and miRNA were integrated with drug sensitivity (area under the curve, AUC) data. We performed modular dimensionality reduction using t-SNE (t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding), followed by K-Means clustering to stratify cell lines into data-driven molecular subgroups, and applied a Random Forest model to refine the drug list, selecting only those with a prediction accuracy exceeding 75%. Our findings show that among the evaluated single-omics features, transcriptomics is the most informative; however, multi-omics integration significantly enhances predictive capability compared to single-omics analysis, with a combination of transcriptomic, proteomic, and miRNA data achieving the best predictive performance across both primary and validation datasets. Cluster analysis showed the importance of well-defined clusters, indicating that while silhouette scores were linked to prediction success, biological variability also played a critical role. This study advances personalized oncology treatment strategies and provides a foundation for future studies focused on ranking omics features based on their predictive capabilities, eventually contributing to better therapeutic outcomes. Predictive performance is used here to evaluate omics feature strength, rather than as an objective to optimize predictive models.
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.