This package enhances biomarker discovery and predictive modeling in multi-omic studies, suggesting improved feature selection methods.
Modern clinical trials increasingly leverage high-throughput omic data for patient stratification and biomarker discovery. While traditional differential gene expression analysis disregards the networked nature of molecular entities and produces extensive gene lists with limited interpretability, differential network analysis has emerged as a crucial complementary analysis for comparative studies. Here we present multiDEGGs, a CRAN R package that enables differential network analysis in multi-omic scenarios. multiDEGGs uses a multi-layer graph framework to model omic data by leveraging an internal network of over 10 000 literature-validated biological interactions. For each data type, differential networks are generated, and the statistical significance of each link (p-values or adjusted p-values) is evaluated through robust linear regression with interaction terms. These networks are then integrated into a comprehensive visualisation that allows interactive exploration of cross-omic patterns. Beyond network visualization and exploration, multiDEGGs extends its utility to predictive modelling applications. The package facilitates seamless integration into cross-validation machine learning pipelines, serving as feature selection and augmentation tool. We validated multiDEGGs using two cohorts of rheumatoid arthritis patients who underwent tocilizumab and rituximab therapy, respectively. For each treatment group, multi-layer differential interactions were identified, and seven machine learning models were trained to predict treatment resistance using synovial RNA-seq data. We systematically compared multiDEGGs against five traditional feature selection methods. On average, AUC values obtained with multiDEGGs showed an improvement of 0.10 compared to conventional filters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sciacca et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: