Cited by 1,091Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchGene expression and cancer classification

Deep learning-based multi-omics integration robustly predicts survival in liver cancer

Open access
Chaudhary, Kumardeep, Poirion, Olivier B., Lu, Liangqun, Garmire, Lana X.·2018·Clinical Cancer Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Identifying robust survival subgroups of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) will significantly improve patient care. Currently, endeavor of integrating multi-omics data to explicitly predict HCC survival from multiple patient cohorts is lacking. To fill this gap, we present a deep learning (DL)–based model on HCC that robustly differentiates survival subpopulations of patients in six cohorts. We built the DL-based, survival-sensitive model on 360 HCC patients' data using RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq), miRNA sequencing (miRNA-Seq), and methylation data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), which predicts prognosis as good as an alternative model where genomics and clinical data are both considered. This DL-based model provides two optimal subgroups of patients with significant survival differences (P = 7.13e−6) and good model fitness [concordance index (C-index) = 0.68]. More aggressive subtype is associated with frequent TP53 inactivation mutations, higher expression of stemness markers (KRT19 and EPCAM) and tumor marker BIRC5, and activated Wnt and Akt signaling pathways. We validated this multi-omics model on five external datasets of various omics types: LIRI-JP cohort (n = 230, C-index = 0.75), NCI cohort (n = 221, C-index = 0.67), Chinese cohort (n = 166, C-index = 0.69), E-TABM-36 cohort (n = 40, C-index = 0.77), and Hawaiian cohort (n = 27, C-index = 0.82). This is the first study to employ DL to identify multi-omics features linked to the differential survival of patients with HCC. Given its robustness over multiple cohorts, we expect this workflow to be useful at predicting HCC prognosis prediction. Clin Cancer Res; 24(6); 1248–59. ©2017 AACR.

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 · 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-0853

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • Particularly in cancer patient survival subtyping with multi-omics modalities, the sequence of joint representation learning through an AE followed by feature selection with univariate Cox proportional hazard modeling and unsupervised label inference has become popular.

    “Particularly in cancer patient survival subtyping with multi-omics modalities, this sequence of steps has become popular [25–31, 34].”
  • Chaudhary et al. employed multi-omics data integration to predict prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and identify subgroups with significant survival differences.

    “In liver cancer research, Chaudhary et al. employed multi-omics data integration to predict the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and identify subgroups with significant survival differences [112].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chaudhary, K., Poirion, O. B., Lu, L., & Garmire, L. X.
Affiliations
  • University of Hawaii Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
Corresponding author
Garmire, Lana X.
Venue
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2018-03-14
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
1248-1259
ISSN
  • 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-3265
OpenAlex
W2951209146
Cited by
1,091
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 95 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 159 · 2023: 152 · 2022: 152 · 2021: 171 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 4
FWCI
38.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIEHS (K01ES025434)
  • NIH/NIGMS (P20 COBRE GM103457)
  • NICHD (R01 HD084633)
  • NLM (R01LM012373)
  • Hawaii Community Foundation (14ADVC-64566)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer-related molecular mechanisms research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
hepatocellular carcinoma, survival prediction, prognosis, multi-omics integration, deep learning, RNA-seq, miRNA sequencing, DNA methylation, p53 inactivation, stem cell markers, Wnt signaling, Akt signaling, survivin, external validation, prognostic subgroups
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Liver Neoplasms, Prognosis, Biomarkers, Tumor, Reproducibility of Results, Proportional Hazards Models, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling, Genomics, Proteomics, Gene Regulatory Networks, Metabolomics, Transcriptome

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