» Articles » PMID: 36199022

Benchmark Study of Feature Selection Strategies for Multi-omics Data

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Biology
Date 2022 Oct 5
PMID 36199022
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: In the last few years, multi-omics data, that is, datasets containing different types of high-dimensional molecular variables for the same samples, have become increasingly available. To date, several comparison studies focused on feature selection methods for omics data, but to our knowledge, none compared these methods for the special case of multi-omics data. Given that these data have specific structures that differentiate them from single-omics data, it is unclear whether different feature selection strategies may be optimal for such data. In this paper, using 15 cancer multi-omics datasets we compared four filter methods, two embedded methods, and two wrapper methods with respect to their performance in the prediction of a binary outcome in several situations that may affect the prediction results. As classifiers, we used support vector machines and random forests. The methods were compared using repeated fivefold cross-validation. The accuracy, the AUC, and the Brier score served as performance metrics.

Results: The results suggested that, first, the chosen number of selected features affects the predictive performance for many feature selection methods but not all. Second, whether the features were selected by data type or from all data types concurrently did not considerably affect the predictive performance, but for some methods, concurrent selection took more time. Third, regardless of which performance measure was considered, the feature selection methods mRMR, the permutation importance of random forests, and the Lasso tended to outperform the other considered methods. Here, mRMR and the permutation importance of random forests already delivered strong predictive performance when considering only a few selected features. Finally, the wrapper methods were computationally much more expensive than the filter and embedded methods.

Conclusions: We recommend the permutation importance of random forests and the filter method mRMR for feature selection using multi-omics data, where, however, mRMR is considerably more computationally costly.

Citing Articles

Early Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections Using Serum Metabolomic Analysis.

Han S, Li R, Wang H, Wang L, Gao Y, Wen Y Metabolites. 2024; 14(12).

PMID: 39728466 PMC: 11676852. DOI: 10.3390/metabo14120685.


Transforming Clinical Research: The Power of High-Throughput Omics Integration.

Vitorino R Proteomes. 2024; 12(3).

PMID: 39311198 PMC: 11417901. DOI: 10.3390/proteomes12030025.


Exploring genomic feature selection: A comparative analysis of GWAS and machine learning algorithms in a large-scale soybean dataset.

Al-Mamun H, Danilevicz M, Marsh J, Gondro C, Edwards D Plant Genome. 2024; 18(1):e20503.

PMID: 39253773 PMC: 11726426. DOI: 10.1002/tpg2.20503.


Does combining numerous data types in multi-omics data improve or hinder performance in survival prediction? Insights from a large-scale benchmark study.

Li Y, Herold T, Mansmann U, Hornung R BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024; 24(1):244.

PMID: 39223659 PMC: 11370316. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-024-02642-9.


Logistic PCA explains differences between genome-scale metabolic models in terms of metabolic pathways.

Zehetner L, Szeliova D, Kraus B, Bort J, Zanghellini J PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(6):e1012236.

PMID: 38913731 PMC: 11226097. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012236.


References
1.
Wang X, Sun Q . TP53 mutations, expression and interaction networks in human cancers. Oncotarget. 2016; 8(1):624-643. PMC: 5352183. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13483. View

2.
De Bin R, Sauerbrei W, Boulesteix A . Investigating the prediction ability of survival models based on both clinical and omics data: two case studies. Stat Med. 2014; 33(30):5310-29. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6246. View

3.
Haury A, Gestraud P, Vert J . The influence of feature selection methods on accuracy, stability and interpretability of molecular signatures. PLoS One. 2011; 6(12):e28210. PMC: 3244389. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028210. View

4.
Tomczak K, Czerwinska P, Wiznerowicz M . The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA): an immeasurable source of knowledge. Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2015; 19(1A):A68-77. PMC: 4322527. DOI: 10.5114/wo.2014.47136. View

5.
Leclercq M, Vittrant B, Martin-Magniette M, Scott Boyer M, Perin O, Bergeron A . Large-Scale Automatic Feature Selection for Biomarker Discovery in High-Dimensional OMICs Data. Front Genet. 2019; 10:452. PMC: 6532608. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00452. View