血癌多组学特征的机器学习:系统综述。

IF 5.2 2区 生物学 Q2 CELL BIOLOGY
Cells Pub Date : 2025-09-04 DOI:10.3390/cells14171385
Sultan Qalit Alhamrani, Graham Roy Ball, Ahmed A El-Sherif, Shaza Ahmed, Nahla O Mousa, Shahad Ali Alghorayed, Nader Atallah Alatawi, Albalawi Mohammed Ali, Fahad Abdullah Alqahtani, Refaat M Gabre
{"title":"血癌多组学特征的机器学习:系统综述。","authors":"Sultan Qalit Alhamrani, Graham Roy Ball, Ahmed A El-Sherif, Shaza Ahmed, Nahla O Mousa, Shahad Ali Alghorayed, Nader Atallah Alatawi, Albalawi Mohammed Ali, Fahad Abdullah Alqahtani, Refaat M Gabre","doi":"10.3390/cells14171385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial Intelligence and machine learning are increasingly used to interrogate complex biological data. This systematic review evaluates their application to multi-omics for the molecular characterization of hematological malignancies, an area with unmet clinical need. We searched PubMed, Embase, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, and Web of Science from January 2015 to December 2024. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, and used a modified appraisal emphasizing explainability, performance, reproducibility, and ethics. From 2847 records, 89 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies focused on acute myeloid leukemia (34), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (23), and multiple myeloma (18). Other hematological diseases were less frequently studied. Methods included Support Vector Machines, Random Forests, and deep learning (28, 25, and 24 studies). Multi-omics integration was reported in 23 studies. External validation occurred in 31 studies, and explainability in 19. The median diagnostic area under the curve was 0.87 (interquartile range 0.81 to 0.94); deep learning reached 0.91 but offered the least explainability. Artificial Intelligence and machine learning show promise for molecular characterization, yet gaps in validation, interpretability, and standardization remain. Priorities include external validation, interpretable modeling, harmonized evaluation, and standardized reporting with shared benchmarks to enable safe, reproducible clinical translation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9743,"journal":{"name":"Cells","volume":"14 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12427946/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine Learning for Multi-Omics Characterization of Blood Cancers: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Sultan Qalit Alhamrani, Graham Roy Ball, Ahmed A El-Sherif, Shaza Ahmed, Nahla O Mousa, Shahad Ali Alghorayed, Nader Atallah Alatawi, Albalawi Mohammed Ali, Fahad Abdullah Alqahtani, Refaat M Gabre\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/cells14171385\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Artificial Intelligence and machine learning are increasingly used to interrogate complex biological data. This systematic review evaluates their application to multi-omics for the molecular characterization of hematological malignancies, an area with unmet clinical need. We searched PubMed, Embase, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, and Web of Science from January 2015 to December 2024. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, and used a modified appraisal emphasizing explainability, performance, reproducibility, and ethics. From 2847 records, 89 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies focused on acute myeloid leukemia (34), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (23), and multiple myeloma (18). Other hematological diseases were less frequently studied. Methods included Support Vector Machines, Random Forests, and deep learning (28, 25, and 24 studies). Multi-omics integration was reported in 23 studies. External validation occurred in 31 studies, and explainability in 19. The median diagnostic area under the curve was 0.87 (interquartile range 0.81 to 0.94); deep learning reached 0.91 but offered the least explainability. Artificial Intelligence and machine learning show promise for molecular characterization, yet gaps in validation, interpretability, and standardization remain. Priorities include external validation, interpretable modeling, harmonized evaluation, and standardized reporting with shared benchmarks to enable safe, reproducible clinical translation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cells\",\"volume\":\"14 17\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12427946/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cells\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14171385\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cells","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14171385","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能和机器学习越来越多地用于查询复杂的生物数据。这篇系统的综述评估了它们在血液恶性肿瘤分子特征的多组学中的应用,这是一个尚未满足临床需求的领域。从2015年1月到2024年12月,我们检索了PubMed、Embase、Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore和Web of Science。两位审稿人筛选了记录,提取了数据,并使用了强调可解释性、性能、可重复性和伦理的改进评价。从2847条记录中,89项研究符合纳入标准。研究集中于急性髓性白血病(34)、急性淋巴细胞白血病(23)和多发性骨髓瘤(18)。其他血液病的研究较少。方法包括支持向量机、随机森林和深度学习(28、25和24项研究)。23项研究报道了多组学整合。31项研究发生了外部验证,19项研究发生了可解释性。曲线下诊断面积中位数为0.87(四分位数间距0.81 ~ 0.94);深度学习达到0.91,但可解释性最差。人工智能和机器学习显示了分子表征的前景,但在验证、可解释性和标准化方面仍然存在差距。优先事项包括外部验证、可解释建模、协调评估和具有共享基准的标准化报告,以实现安全、可重复的临床翻译。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Machine Learning for Multi-Omics Characterization of Blood Cancers: A Systematic Review.

Machine Learning for Multi-Omics Characterization of Blood Cancers: A Systematic Review.

Artificial Intelligence and machine learning are increasingly used to interrogate complex biological data. This systematic review evaluates their application to multi-omics for the molecular characterization of hematological malignancies, an area with unmet clinical need. We searched PubMed, Embase, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, and Web of Science from January 2015 to December 2024. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, and used a modified appraisal emphasizing explainability, performance, reproducibility, and ethics. From 2847 records, 89 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies focused on acute myeloid leukemia (34), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (23), and multiple myeloma (18). Other hematological diseases were less frequently studied. Methods included Support Vector Machines, Random Forests, and deep learning (28, 25, and 24 studies). Multi-omics integration was reported in 23 studies. External validation occurred in 31 studies, and explainability in 19. The median diagnostic area under the curve was 0.87 (interquartile range 0.81 to 0.94); deep learning reached 0.91 but offered the least explainability. Artificial Intelligence and machine learning show promise for molecular characterization, yet gaps in validation, interpretability, and standardization remain. Priorities include external validation, interpretable modeling, harmonized evaluation, and standardized reporting with shared benchmarks to enable safe, reproducible clinical translation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cells
Cells Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
5.00%
发文量
3472
审稿时长
16 days
期刊介绍: Cells (ISSN 2073-4409) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal which provides an advanced forum for studies related to cell biology, molecular biology and biophysics. It publishes reviews, research articles, communications and technical notes. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Full experimental and/or methodical details must be provided.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信