Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35679533›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2022

Heterogeneous data integration methods for patient similarity networks.

Jessica Gliozzo, Marco Mesiti, Marco Notaro, Alessandro Petrini, Alex Patak, Antonio Puertas-Gallardo, Alberto Paccanaro, Giorgio Valentini, Elena Casiraghi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Vitiligo Information Resource database v3.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. MoNETA: MultiOmics Network Embedding for SubType Analysis.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors.

Jessica GliozzoAnacletoLab - Computer Science Department, Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 18, 20135, Milan, Italy.
Marco MesitiAnacletoLab - Computer Science Department, Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 18, 20135, Milan, Italy.
Marco NotaroAnacletoLab - Computer Science Department, Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 18, 20135, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro PetriniAnacletoLab - Computer Science Department, Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 18, 20135, Milan, Italy.
Alex PatakEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra (VA), Italy.
Antonio Puertas-GallardoEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra (VA), Italy.
Alberto PaccanaroDepartment of Computer Science, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX UK.
Giorgio ValentiniAnacletoLab - Computer Science Department, Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 18, 20135, Milan, Italy.
Elena CasiraghiAnacletoLab - Computer Science Department, Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 18, 20135, Milan, Italy.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F00964X/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K004131/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M025047/1Medical Research Council MR/T001070/1
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine Learningbiomedical applicationsdata fusionmultimodal datapatient similarity networks

Identifiers

PMID35679533
PMCPMC9294435

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.