Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31248362›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

Block Forests: random forests for blocks of clinical and omics covariate data.

Roman Hornung, Marvin N Wright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. CSIE: cancer subtyping via inference and ensemble.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Integrative Analysis of Multimodal Omics Data.Annual review of statistics and its application · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Statistical consideration in nephrology research.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Roman HornungInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, Munich, 81377, Germany. hornung@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6036-1495
Marvin N WrightLeibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Achterstr. 30, Bremen, 28359, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft BO3139/4-3Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft BO3139/6-1Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft HO6422/1-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the last years more and more multi-omics data are becoming available, that is, data featuring measurements of several types of omics data for each patient. Using multi-omics data as covariate data in outcome prediction is both promising and challenging due to the complex structure of such data. Random forest is a prediction method known for its ability to render complex dependency patterns between the outcome and the covariates. Against this background we developed five candidate random forest variants tailored to multi-omics covariate data. These variants modify the split point selection of random forest to incorporate the block structure of multi-omics data and can be applied to any outcome type for which a random forest variant exists, such as categorical, continuous and survival outcomes. Using 20 publicly available multi-omics data sets with survival outcome we compared the prediction performances of the block forest variants with alternatives. We also considered the common special case of having clinical covariates and measurements of a single omics data type available.

resultsWe identify one variant termed "block forest" that outperformed all other approaches in the comparison study. In particular, it performed significantly better than standard random survival forest (adjusted p-value: 0.027). The two best performing variants have in common that the block choice is randomized in the split point selection procedure. In the case of having clinical covariates and a single omics data type available, the improvements of the variants over random survival forest were larger than in the case of the multi-omics data. The degrees of improvements over random survival forest varied strongly across data sets. Moreover, considering all clinical covariates mandatorily improved the performance. This result should however be interpreted with caution, because the level of predictive information contained in clinical covariates depends on the specific application.

conclusionsThe new prediction method block forest for multi-omics data can significantly improve the prediction performance of random forest and outperformed alternatives in the comparison. Block forest is particularly effective for the special case of using clinical covariates in combination with measurements of a single omics data type.

Indexed as

Machine LearningGenomicsHumansSurvival AnalysisCancerMachine learningMulti-omics dataPredictionRandom forestStatisticsSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID31248362
PMCPMC6598279

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.