Cited by 34Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGene expression and cancer classificationGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

A comparison of graph- and kernel-based –omics data integration algorithms for classifying complex traits

Open access
Yan, Kang K., Zhao, Hongyu, Pang, Herbert·2017·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: High-throughput sequencing data are widely collected and analyzed in the study of complex diseases in quest of improving human health. Well-studied algorithms mostly deal with single data source, and cannot fully utilize the potential of these multi-omics data sources. In order to provide a holistic understanding of human health and diseases, it is necessary to integrate multiple data sources. Several algorithms have been proposed so far, however, a comprehensive comparison of data integration algorithms for classification of binary traits is currently lacking. RESULTS: In this paper, we focus on two common classes of integration algorithms, graph-based that depict relationships with subjects denoted by nodes and relationships denoted by edges, and kernel-based that can generate a classifier in feature space. Our paper provides a comprehensive comparison of their performance in terms of various measurements of classification accuracy and computation time. Seven different integration algorithms, including graph-based semi-supervised learning, graph sharpening integration, composite association network, Bayesian network, semi-definite programming-support vector machine (SDP-SVM), relevance vector machine (RVM) and Ada-boost relevance vector machine are compared and evaluated with hypertension and two cancer data sets in our study. In general, kernel-based algorithms create more complex models and require longer computation time, but they tend to perform better than graph-based algorithms. The performance of graph-based algorithms has the advantage of being faster computationally. CONCLUSIONS: The empirical results demonstrate that composite association network, relevance vector machine, and Ada-boost RVM are the better performers. We provide recommendations on how to choose an appropriate algorithm for integrating data from multiple sources.

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 · 10.1186/s12859-017-1982-4

Cites

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?

  • Most transformation-based supervised learning methods are kernel and graph-based algorithms.

    “Most of them are kernel and graph-based algorithms (Yan et al., 2017).”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Yan et al., 2017

  • The comparison highlights better classification performance of RVM, Ada-boost RVM and SDP-SVM compared to SSL, graph sharpening, composite network and BN.

    “It highlights the better classification performance of RVM, Ada-boost RVM and SDP-SVM in comparison to SSL, graph sharpening, composite network and BN.”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Yan et al., 2017

  • Yan provided an extensive comparison of graph- and kernel-based integration approaches in supervised learning using standardised test datasets.

    “Yan (Yan et al., 2017) provide an extensive comparison between different graph-and kernel-based integration approaches in a supervised learning context using various standardised test datasets.”

    From Using machine learning approaches for multi-omics data analysis: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Yan et al., 2017

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 34

Authors
Yan, K. K., Zhao, H., & Pang, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Pang, Herbert
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2017-12
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
539-539
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2771318548
Cited by
34
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (GM059507, CA154295)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
multi-omics integration, semi-supervised learning, Bayesian networks, relevance vector machine, hypertension, cancer, algorithm comparison
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Computational Biology, Support Vector Machine

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