The DOI matches its Crossref record; 116 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multi-omic and multi-view clustering algorithms: review and cancer benchmark
Open accessAbstract
Recent high throughput experimental methods have been used to collect large biomedical omics datasets. Clustering of single omic datasets has proven invaluable for biological and medical research. The decreasing cost and development of additional high throughput methods now enable measurement of multi-omic data. Clustering multi-omic data has the potential to reveal further systems-level insights, but raises computational and biological challenges. Here, we review algorithms for multi-omics clustering, and discuss key issues in applying these algorithms. Our review covers methods developed specifically for omic data as well as generic multi-view methods developed in the machine learning community for joint clustering of multiple data types. In addition, using cancer data from TCGA, we perform an extensive benchmark spanning ten different cancer types, providing the first systematic comparison of leading multi-omics and multi-view clustering algorithms. The results highlight key issues regarding the use of single- versus multi-omics, the choice of clustering strategy, the power of generic multi-view methods and the use of approximated p-values for gauging solution quality. Due to the growing use of multi-omics data, we expect these issues to be important for future progress in the field.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis
Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987) · Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7 · Cited by 21,392
Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images.
Geman, S., & Geman, D. (1984) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.1984.4767596 · Cited by 17,949
Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks
Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., & Le, Q. V. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.3215 · Cited by 17,766
(1988) · Cited by 16,582
A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., & Teh, Y.-W. (2006) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.2006.18.7.1527 · Cited by 16,336
Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization
Lee, D. D., & Seung, H. S. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/44565 · Cited by 13,868
Jain, A. K., Murty, M. N., & Flynn, P. J. (1999) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/331499.331504 · Cited by 13,199
Cited by
A guide to machine learning for biologists
Greener, J. G., Kandathil, S. M., Moffat, L., & Jones, D. T. (2022) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41580-021-00407-0 · Cited by 2,127
Multi-omics Data Integration, Interpretation, and Its Application
Subramanian, I., Verma, S., Kumar, S., Jere, A., & Anamika, K. (2020) · Bioinformatics and Biology Insights · doi:10.1177/1177932219899051 · Cited by 1,609
Pang, Z., Zhou, G., Ewald, J., Chang, L., Hacariz, O., Basu, N., & Xia, J. (2022) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-022-00710-w · Cited by 1,444
Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review
Reel, P. S., Reel, S., Pearson, E., Trucco, E., & Jefferson, E. (2021) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2021.107739 · Cited by 903
Integration strategies of multi-omics data for machine learning analysis
Picard, M., Scott-Boyer, M.-P., Bodein, A., Périn, O., & Droit, A. (2021) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2021.06.030 · Cited by 696
Metadata
- Authors
- Rappoport, N., & Shamir, R.
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-10-08
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 10546-10562
- ISSN
- 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-4962
- OpenAlex
- W2884724578
- Cited by
- 553
- References
- 116
- FWCI
- 13.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multi-omic and multi-view clustering algorithms: review and cancer benchmark. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/nar/gky889
- The paper
- Rappoport, N., & Shamir, R. (2018). Multi-omic and multi-view clustering algorithms: review and cancer benchmark. Nucleic Acids Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky889
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
