4.6 Article

CEPICS: A Comparison and Evaluation Platform for Integration Methods in Cancer Subtyping

Journal

FRONTIERS IN GENETICS
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00966

Keywords

data integration; multi-omics; cluster analysis; cancer subtypes; R package

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC0910400]
  2. National NSFC [61532014, 61432010, 61702397]
  3. Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project [2018SHZDZX01]
  4. LCNBI
  5. ZJLab

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cancer subtypes can improve our understanding of cancer, and suggest more precise treatment for patients. Multi-omics molecular data can characterize cancers at different levels. Up to now, many computational methods that integrate multi-omics data for cancer subtyping have been proposed. However, there are no consistent criteria to evaluate the integration methods due to the lack of gold standards (e.g., the number of subtypes in a specific cancer). Since comprehensive evaluation and comparison between different methods serves as a useful tool or guideline for users to select an optimal method for their own purpose, we develop a scalable platform, CEPICS, for comprehensively evaluating and comparing multi-omics data integration methods in cancer subtyping. Given a user-specified maximum number of subtypes, k-max, CEPICS provides (1) cancer subtyping results using up to five built-in state-of-the-art integration methods under the number of subtypes from two to k-max, (2) a report including the evaluation of each user-selected method and comparisons across them using clustering performance metrics and clinical survival analysis, and (3) an overall analysis of subtyping results by different methods representing a robust cancer subtype prediction for samples. Furthermore, users can upload subtyping results of their own methods to compare with the built-in methods. CEPICS is implemented as an R package and is freely available at https://github.com/GaoLabXDU/CEPICS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available