Artificial intelligence applied to omics data in liver diseases: Enhancing clinical predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid development of biotechnology has led to the generation of vast amounts of multi-omics data, necessitating the advancement of bioinformatics and artificial intelligence to enable computational modeling to diagnose and predict clinical outcome. Both conventional machine learning and new deep learning algorithms screen existing data unbiasedly to uncover patterns and create models that can be valuable in informing clinical decisions. We summarized published literature on the use of AI models trained on omics datasets, with and without clinical data, to diagnose, risk-stratify, and predict survivability of patients with non-malignant liver diseases. A total of 20 different models were tested in selected studies. Generally, the addition of omics data to regular clinical parameters or individual biomarkers improved the AI model performance. For instance, using NAFLD fibrosis score to distinguish F0-F2 from F3-F4 fibrotic stages, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.87. When integrating metabolomic data by a GMLVQ model, the AUC drastically improved to 0.99. The use of RF on multi-omics and clinical data in another study to predict progression of NAFLD to NASH resulted in an AUC of 0.84, compared to 0.82 when using clinical data only. A comparison of RF, SVM and kNN models on genomics data to classify immune tolerant phase in chronic hepatitis B resulted in AUC of 0.8793-0.8838 compared to 0.6759-0.7276 when using various serum biomarkers. Overall, the integration of omics was shown to improve prediction performance compared to models built only on clinical parameters, indicating a potential use for personalized medicine in clinical setting.
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 | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".