MOLI: Multi-Omics Late Integration with deep neural networks for drug response prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation Historically, gene expression has been shown to be the most informative data for drug response prediction. Recent evidence suggests that integrating additional omics can improve the prediction accuracy which raises the question of how to integrate the additional omics. Regardless of the integration strategy, clinical utility and translatability are crucial. Thus, we reasoned a multi-omics approach combined with clinical datasets would improve drug response prediction and clinical relevance. Results We propose MOLI, a M ulti- O mics L ate I ntegration method based on deep neural networks. MOLI takes somatic mutation, copy number aberration, and gene expression data as input, and integrates them for drug response prediction. MOLI uses type-specific encoding subnetworks to learn features for each omics type, concatenates them into one representation and optimizes this representation via a combined cost function consisting of a triplet loss and a binary cross-entropy loss. The former makes the representations of responder samples more similar to each and different from the non-responders, and the latter makes this representation predictive of the response values. We validate MOLI on in vitro and in vivo datasets for five chemotherapy agents and two targeted therapeutics. Compared to state-of-the-art single-omics and early integration multi-omics methods, MOLI achieves higher prediction accuracy in external validations. Moreover, a significant improvement in MOLI’s performance is observed for targeted drugs when training on a pan-drug input, i.e. using all the drugs with the same target compared to training only on drug-specific inputs. MOLI’s high predictive power suggests it may have utility in precision oncology. Availability of the implemented codes https://github.com/hosseinshn/MOLI Contact ccollins@prostatecentre.com and ester@cs.sfu.ca
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".