Cited by 23Gene expression and cancer classificationBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

DeepMF: deciphering the latent patterns in omics profiles with a deep learning method

Open access
Chen, Lingxi, Xu, Jiao, Li, Shuai Cheng·2019·BMC Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With recent advances in high-throughput technologies, matrix factorization techniques are increasingly being utilized for mapping quantitative omics profiling matrix data into low-dimensional embedding space, in the hope of uncovering insights in the underlying biological processes. Nevertheless, current matrix factorization tools fall short in handling noisy data and missing entries, both deficiencies that are often found in real-life data. RESULTS: Here, we propose DeepMF, a deep neural network-based factorization model. DeepMF disentangles the association between molecular feature-associated and sample-associated latent matrices, and is tolerant to noisy and missing values. It exhibited feasible cancer subtype discovery efficacy on mRNA, miRNA, and protein profiles of medulloblastoma cancer, leukemia cancer, breast cancer, and small-blue-round-cell cancer, achieving the highest clustering accuracy of 76%, 100%, 92%, and 100% respectively. When analyzing data sets with 70% missing entries, DeepMF gave the best recovery capacity with silhouette values of 0.47, 0.6, 0.28, and 0.44, outperforming other state-of-the-art MF tools on the cancer data sets Medulloblastoma, Leukemia, TCGA BRCA, and SRBCT. Its embedding strength as measured by clustering accuracy is 88%, 100%, 84%, and 96% on these data sets, which improves on the current best methods 76%, 100%, 78%, and 87%. CONCLUSION: DeepMF demonstrated robust denoising, imputation, and embedding ability. It offers insights to uncover the underlying biological processes such as cancer subtype discovery. Our implementation of DeepMF can be found at https://github.com/paprikachan/DeepMF.

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/s12859-019-3291-6

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • In evaluating DeepMF at 10%, 50%, and 70% missingness, Chen et al. found that DeepMF was consistently able to identify sample and feature subgroups with perfect accuracy.

    “In evaluating the robustness of DeepMF to varying levels of missingness (10, 50, and 70%), Chen et al. (2019) found that DeepMF was consistently able to identify sample and feature subgroups with perfect accuracy.”
  • DeepMF's perfect-accuracy evaluations were completed in a simulated data setting in which data were simulated as missing completely at random (MCAR) and ground truth feature subgroups were generated with simple discrimination boundaries.

    “However, it should be noted that these evaluations were completed in a simulated data setting in which data were simulated as missing completely at random (MCAR) and ground truth feature subgroups were generated with simple discrimination boundaries.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, L., Xu, J., & Li, S. C.
Affiliations
City University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Li, Shuai Cheng
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2019-12
Volume
20
Issue
S23
Pages
648-648
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2997597306
Cited by
23
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CityU Scholars (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • City University of Hong Kong (11257316)
  • Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
matrix factorization, omics data, missing data imputation, gene expression profiles, microRNA expression profiles, protein profile, medulloblastoma, leukemia, breast cancer, small round cell tumor, cancer clustering
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Humans, Neoplasms, RNA, Messenger, Software, Neural Networks, Computer, Genomics, Databases, Genetic, MicroRNAs

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