Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

CLCLSA: Cross-omics Linked embedding with Contrastive Learning and Self Attention for multi-omics integration with incomplete multi-omics data

About

Integration of heterogeneous and high-dimensional multi-omics data is becoming increasingly important in understanding genetic data. Each omics technique only provides a limited view of the underlying biological process and integrating heterogeneous omics layers simultaneously would lead to a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of diseases and phenotypes. However, one obstacle faced when performing multi-omics data integration is the existence of unpaired multi-omics data due to instrument sensitivity and cost. Studies may fail if certain aspects of the subjects are missing or incomplete. In this paper, we propose a deep learning method for multi-omics integration with incomplete data by Cross-omics Linked unified embedding with Contrastive Learning and Self Attention (CLCLSA). Utilizing complete multi-omics data as supervision, the model employs cross-omics autoencoders to learn the feature representation across different types of biological data. The multi-omics contrastive learning, which is used to maximize the mutual information between different types of omics, is employed before latent feature concatenation. In addition, the feature-level self-attention and omics-level self-attention are employed to dynamically identify the most informative features for multi-omics data integration. Extensive experiments were conducted on four public multi-omics datasets. The experimental results indicated that the proposed CLCLSA outperformed the state-of-the-art approaches for multi-omics data classification using incomplete multi-omics data.

Chen Zhao, Anqi Liu, Xiao Zhang, Xuewei Cao, Zhengming Ding, Qiuying Sha, Hui Shen, Hong-Wen Deng, Weihua Zhou• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
ClassificationADNI CN vs AD (test)
Accuracy0.885
28
Cancer ClassificationBRCA
Accuracy82.5
22
NC vs. MCI classificationOASIS
Accuracy88.3
21
MCI vs. AD classificationOASIS
Accuracy0.784
19
NC vs. AD classificationOASIS
Accuracy89.5
19
MCI vs. AD classificationAIBL
Accuracy75.5
18
CN vs MCI ClassificationADNI (test)
Accuracy72.7
17
CN vs MCI ClassificationAIBL
Accuracy86.5
17
MCI vs. AD classificationADNI (test)
Accuracy83.5
17
CN vs AD ClassificationAIBL
Accuracy93.8
17
Showing 10 of 13 rows

Other info

Follow for update