Interpretation of network-based integration from multi-omics longitudinal data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-omics integration is key to fully understand complex biological processes in an holistic manner. Furthermore, multi-omics combined with new longitudinal experimental design can unreveal dynamic relationships between omics layers and identify key players or interactions in system development or complex phenotypes. However, integration methods have to address various experimental designs and do not guarantee interpretable biological results. The new challenge of multi-omics integration is to solve interpretation and unlock the hidden knowledge within the multi-omics data. In this paper, we go beyond integration and propose a generic approach to face the interpretation problem. From multi-omics longitudinal data, this approach builds and explores hybrid multi-omics networks composed of both inferred and known relationships within and between omics layers. With smart node labelling and propagation analysis, this approach predicts regulation mechanisms and multi-omics functional modules. We applied the method on 3 case studies with various multi-omics designs and identified new multi-layer interactions involved in key biological functions that could not be revealed with single omics analysis. Moreover, we highlighted interplay in the kinetics that could help identify novel biological mechanisms. This method is available as an R package netOmics to readily suit any application.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".