Heterogeneous data integration methods for patient similarity networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient similarity networks (PSNs), where patients are represented as nodes and their similarities as weighted edges, are being increasingly used in clinical research. These networks provide an insightful summary of the relationships among patients and can be exploited by inductive or transductive learning algorithms for the prediction of patient outcome, phenotype and disease risk. PSNs can also be easily visualized, thus offering a natural way to inspect complex heterogeneous patient data and providing some level of explainability of the predictions obtained by machine learning algorithms. The advent of high-throughput technologies, enabling us to acquire high-dimensional views of the same patients (e.g. omics data, laboratory data, imaging data), calls for the development of data fusion techniques for PSNs in order to leverage this rich heterogeneous information. In this article, we review existing methods for integrating multiple biomedical data views to construct PSNs, together with the different patient similarity measures that have been proposed. We also review methods that have appeared in the machine learning literature but have not yet been applied to PSNs, thus providing a resource to navigate the vast machine learning literature existing on this topic. In particular, we focus on methods that could be used to integrate very heterogeneous datasets, including multi-omics data as well as data derived from clinical information and medical imaging.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".