Machine Learning and Integrative Analysis of Biomedical Big Data.

Recent developments in high-throughput technologies have accelerated the accumulation of massive amounts of omics data from multiple sources: genome, epigenome, transcriptome, proteome, metabolome, etc. Traditionally, data from each source (e.g., genome) is analyzed in isolation using statistical and machine learning (ML) methods. Integrative analysis of multi-omics and clinical data is key to new biomedical discoveries and advancements in precision medicine. However, data integration poses new computational challenges as well as exacerbates the ones associated with single-omics studies. Specialized computational approaches are required to effectively and efficiently perform integrative analysis of biomedical data acquired from diverse modalities. In this review, we discuss state-of-the-art ML-based approaches for tackling five specific computational challenges associated with integrative analysis: curse of dimensionality, data heterogeneity, missing data, class imbalance and scalability issues

A Tale of Two Data-Intensive Paradigms: Applications, Abstractions, and Architectures

Scientific problems that depend on processing large amounts of data require overcoming challenges in multiple areas: managing large-scale data distribution, co-placement and scheduling of data with compute resources, and storing and transferring large volumes of data. We analyze the ecosystems of the two prominent paradigms for data-intensive applications, hereafter referred to as the high-performance computing and the Apache-Hadoop paradigm. We propose a basis, common terminology and functional factors upon which to analyze the two approaches of both paradigms. We discuss the concept of "Big Data Ogres" and their facets as means of understanding and characterizing the most common application workloads found across the two paradigms. We then discuss the salient features of the two paradigms, and compare and contrast the two approaches. Specifically, we examine common implementation/approaches of these paradigms, shed light upon the reasons for their current "architecture" and discuss some typical workloads that utilize them. In spite of the significant software distinctions, we believe there is architectural similarity. We discuss the potential integration of different implementations, across the different levels and components. Our comparison progresses from a fully qualitative examination of the two paradigms, to a semi-quantitative methodology. We use a simple and broadly used Ogre (K-means clustering), characterize its performance on a range of representative platforms, covering several implementations from both paradigms. Our experiments provide an insight into the relative strengths of the two paradigms. We propose that the set of Ogres will serve as a benchmark to evaluate the two paradigms along different dimensions.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figure