Cited by 777Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Artificial intelligence for multimodal data integration in oncology

Open access
Lipkova, Jana, Chen, Richard J., Chen, Bowen, Lu, Ming Y., Barbieri, Matteo, Shao, Daniel, Vaidya, Anurag J., Chen, Chengkuan +5 more·2022·Cancer Cell

Abstract

In oncology, the patient state is characterized by a whole spectrum of modalities, ranging from radiology, histology, and genomics to electronic health records. Current artificial intelligence (AI) models operate mainly in the realm of a single modality, neglecting the broader clinical context, which inevitably diminishes their potential. Integration of different data modalities provides opportunities to increase robustness and accuracy of diagnostic and prognostic models, bringing AI closer to clinical practice. AI models are also capable of discovering novel patterns within and across modalities suitable for explaining differences in patient outcomes or treatment resistance. The insights gleaned from such models can guide exploration studies and contribute to the discovery of novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets. To support these advances, here we present a synopsis of AI methods and strategies for multimodal data fusion and association discovery. We outline approaches for AI interpretability and directions for AI-driven exploration through multimodal data interconnections. We examine challenges in clinical adoption and discuss emerging solutions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.09.012

Cites

148 of 148 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI-driven medical imaging analysis significantly improves the accuracy and efficiency of diagnostic processes.

    “AI-driven medical imaging analysis has emerged as a pivotal tool in modern healthcare, significantly improving the accuracy and efficiency of diagnostic processes.66,74,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83”

    From A foundational architecture for AI agents in healthcare (2025) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says AI can provide more accurate patient predictions, and the section on non-invasive alternatives describes image-based predictions of cancer subtypes or grades. But the paper does not establish that medical imaging AI significantly improves diagnostic efficiency in clinical practice; its section on prospective clinical trials says real-world added value and effects on clinical workflow still need testing. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Deep learning methods have been developed for automatically extracting morphological features from CT/MRI images and for downstream tasks including lesion detection and segmentation, image enhancement and reconstruction, sample classification, and prognosis prediction.

    “Deep learning methods have been developed for automatically extracting the morphological features of these images and for downstream tasks of lesion detection and segmentation, image enhancement and reconstruction, sample classification, and prognosis prediction [100].”

    From Challenges in AI-driven Biomedical Multimodal Data Fusion and Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [100]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Assimilating multimodal data can boost AI systems' robustness and accuracy, enable discovery of new biomarkers and therapeutic targets, and improve model performance.

    “This can boost their robustness and accuracy, enable the discovery of new biomarkers and therapeutic targets6,14, as well as improve model performance15–17.”
  • AI systems can profit significantly from assimilating multimodal data into prediction and classification models to imitate integrative human clinical decision-making.

    “AI systems can profit significantly from assimilating multimodal data into prediction and classification models to imitate integrative human clinical decision-making.”
  • In oncology and cancer biomarker discovery, integrating omics within multimodal AI frameworks has demonstrated improved performance.

    “In oncology [27] and cancer biomarker discovery [26], integrating omics within multimodal AI frameworks has demonstrated improved performance”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Adebayo J, Gilmer J, Muelly M, Goodfellow I, Hardt M, and Kim B. Sanity checks for saliency maps. In Bengio S, Wallach H, Larochelle H, Grauman K, Cesa-Bianchi N, and Garnett R, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018.
  2. Cohen JP, Luck M, and Honari S. Distribution matching losses can hallucinate features in medical image translation. In International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 529– 536. Springer, 2018.
  3. Havaei M, Guizard N, Chapados N, and Bengio Y. Hemis: Hetero-modal image segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 469– 477. Springer, 2016.
  4. Horgan RP and Kenny LC. ‘omic’technologies: genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, 13(3): 189– 195, 2011.
  5. Ilse M, Tomczak J, and Welling M. Attention-based deep multiple instance learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2127– 2136. PMLR, 2018.
  6. Mo S, Cai M, Lin L, Tong R, Chen Q, Wang F, Hu H, Iwamoto Y, Han X-H, and Chen Y-W. Multimodal priors guided segmentation of liver lesions in mri using mutual information based graph co-attention networks. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 429– 438. Springer, 2020.
  7. Ramanathan TT, Hossen M, Sayeed M, Naïve bayes based multiple parallel fuzzy reasoning method for medical diagnosis. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 17(1): 0472– 0490, 2022.
  8. Sundararajan M, Taly A, and Yan Q. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3319– 3328. PMLR, 2017.
  9. Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, Gomez AN, Kaiser Ł, and Polosukhin I. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  10. Vo HQ, Yuan P, He T, Wong ST, and Nguyen HV. Multimodal breast lesion classification using cross-attention deep networks. In 2021 IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI), pages 1– 4. IEEE, 2021.
  11. Weiss K, Khoshgoftaar TM, and Wang D. A survey of transfer learning. Journal of Big data, 3(1): 1– 40, 2016.
  12. Xu T, Zhang H, Huang X, Zhang S, and Metaxas DN. Multimodal deep learning for cervical dysplasia diagnosis. In International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 115– 123. Springer, 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lipkova, J., Chen, R. J., Chen, B., Lu, M. Y., Barbieri, M., Shao, D., Vaidya, A. J., Chen, C., Zhuang, L., Williamson, D. F. K., Shaban, M., Chen, T. Y., & Mahmood, F.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Mahmood, Faisal
Venue
Cancer Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-10
Volume
40
Issue
10
Pages
1095-1110
ISSN
1535-6108 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4304014045
Cited by
777
References
148
Citations by year
2026: 254 · 2025: 254 · 2024: 178 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 4
FWCI
8.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Cell (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R35GM138216, T32CA251062)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • Google
  • National Science Foundation
  • Siebel Scholars Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
multimodal data integration, artificial intelligence in oncology, multimodal fusion, association discovery, interpretability, biomarker discovery, therapeutic target discovery, radiology, histology, genomics, electronic health records, clinical adoption, treatment resistance
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Medical Oncology, Radiology, Genomics, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review