MESSI: Multimodal Experiments with SyStematic Interrogation using nextflow

Abstract

BackgroundMultimodal biomedical studies increasingly profile multiple molecular and clinical modalities from the same samples, creating new opportunities for disease prediction and biological discovery. However, benchmarking multimodal integration methods remains difficult because studies often use inconsistent preprocessing, unequal tuning strategies, and non-comparable evaluation schemes, limiting fair assessment across methods. ResultsWe developed MESSI (Multimodal Experiments with SyStematic Interrogation), a reproducible Nextflow-based benchmarking framework for multimodal outcome prediction that standardizes data preparation, supports interoperable R and Python workflows, and enforces leakage-free nested cross-validation for model selection and model assessment. MESSI currently implements representative intermediate- and late-integration methods and supports bulk multiomics, bulk multimodal, and single-cell multiomics datasets. In simulation studies with known ground truth, most methods were well calibrated in the absence of signal and achieved high performance under strong signal, whereas differences emerged under weaker signal and in feature recovery. We then applied MESSI to 19 real datasets spanning cancer, neurodevelopmental, neurodegenerative, infectious, renal, transplant, and metastatic disease settings, with diverse modality combinations including transcriptomic, epigenomic, proteomic, imaging, electrical, clinical, and single-cell-derived features. Across bulk multimodal datasets, classification differences were generally modest, although DIABLO and multiview cooperative learning tended to rank highest, while MOFA+glmnet and MOGONET were weaker overall. Biological enrichment analyses revealed clearer differences: DIABLO, RGCCA, MOFA, and IntegrAO more consistently recovered significant Reactome, oncogenic, and tissue-relevant gene signatures. In single-cell multiomics benchmarks, method rankings were more dataset dependent, but DIABLO performed consistently well across all case studies, while RGCCA also showed strong performance in specific settings. Computational analyses further showed that DIABLO and MOFA had the most favorable runtime and memory profiles, whereas multiview was the most time-intensive and IntegrAO the most memory-demanding. ConclusionsMESSI provides a reproducible, extensible, and equitable framework for benchmarking multimodal integration methods under a common model assessment strategy. Our results indicate that no single method is uniformly optimal across datasets and objectives; instead, method choice should balance predictive performance, biological interpretability, and computational efficiency. MESSI establishes a foundation for transparent benchmarking and future extensions to broader multimodal learning tasks.