Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →A patent landscape for multi-omics data integration using gradient boosting ensembles, covering filing trends, IPC composition, receiving offices and the
Multi-omics data integration using gradient boosting ensembles combines two distinct claim traditions: computational biology methods for fusing genomic, proteomic, metabolomic and clinical data streams, and the specific machine-learning mechanics of gradient-boosted decision trees such as XGBoost. Only 12 patent records match this exact combination across the full search window, which makes the field small enough that every new filing changes the competitive picture. Publication lag means the most recent year is always undercounted relative to what has actually been filed.
The records skew heavily toward bioinformatics and healthcare informatics classifications, with AI-model computing close behind, indicating that most applicants are claiming the integration pipeline and its ML scoring step together rather than treating them as separate inventions.
Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in published records, so one invention filed in several countries counts more than once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified; that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 12 of the 12 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 12 is not the complete set of filers. A single record can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 12-record corpus: when filings happened, and which IPC subclasses they carry.
Filings recorded so far move from 1 in 2024 to 4 in 2026 (a partial year), with 2025 as the peak year at 7 records. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2026's true total will read higher once later filings publish, the trend should be read as a floor, not a ceiling, for the two most recent years.
Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two.
G16B (bioinformatics) and G16H (healthcare informatics) each appear in 8 of the 12 records (66.7%), and G06N (AI-model computing) appears in 7 (58.3%). These three classes overlapping so heavily confirms that applicants are claiming the omics-fusion pipeline and its gradient-boosting scoring step as one invention rather than filing them separately. Diagnosis-and-surgery (A61B) and enzyme/DNA measurement (C12Q) each sit at 2 records (16.7%), pointing to clinical-application claims as a smaller, secondary layer on top of the core computational claims.
Shares are the percentage of the 12 published records in scope. One published record can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about multi-omics data integration using gradient boosting ensemble patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaDisclosed are systems and methods for automated chromatographic peak detection and refinement in high-throughput LC-MS/MS datasets, applicable to both proteomics and metabolomics. The invention integrates signal smoothing, apex detection, boundary assignment, and machine learning-based quality scoring into a fully automated pipeline. The system supports multiple acquisition modes (e.g., DIA-PASEF, Orbitrap), chromatographic strategies (C18, C30, HILIC), and biological matrices. Detected peaks are refined using second derivative and percentile-based baseline logic and scored by an XGBoost classifier trained on curated datasets.Abstract trimmed for length; see the full filing for complete claim language.


Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →Four read-outs from a corpus small enough that each one carries real weight.
With the ranked list running to just 12 companies and a tenth-place entrant holding a single filing, no assignee has built a defensive thicket here, the field is still open to a well-drafted claim.
India accounts for 7 of the 12 records, ahead of China at 4 and the United States at 1.
G16B and G16H each appear in 8 of the 12 records (66.7%), ahead of the 33.3% carrying general digital-data-processing claims (G06F). That overlap signals applicants are claiming the omics-fusion pipeline together with its clinical-informatics framing, not as two separable inventions.
2025 is the peak year so far at 7 records, up from 1 in 2024, with 2026 already showing 4 despite being a partial year at the data cut-off. There isn't yet a long enough run of complete years to state a growth rate, but the direction is unambiguous.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to multi-omics data integration using gradient boosting ensemble patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The raw counts here are a starting point for claim-level and freedom-to-operate work.
A 12-record field is small enough to read every independent claim directly and identify which integration steps and scoring mechanics are already staked out.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaPeak filing activity is recent; tracking new publications as they land will catch competitive moves before a full year's data settles.
Set up monitoring in Patsnap EurekaWith more than half the corpus filed in India, assessing local prior art and examiner practice there matters as much as US or Chinese searches.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in Patsnap EurekaThe dataset behind this landscape contains 12 published patent records matching multi-omics data integration combined with gradient boosting methods such as XGBoost, filed between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off. This is a small, newly forming intersection rather than an established category, so each new filing shifts the picture meaningfully. Counts should be read as families where possible, since raw document counts can be inflated by continuations or multiple jurisdictions covering the same invention.
The assignee ranking covers 12 companies total, and the leader holds only 2 of the 12 records, there is no dominant incumbent. Because the ranking is short, a new well-drafted filing can move a company into the leadership tier quickly.
India leads with 7 of the 12 records, followed by China with 4 and the United States with 1.
Most records carry IPC classifications in bioinformatics (G16B) and healthcare informatics (G16H), each appearing in 8 of the 12 records (66.7%), together with AI-model computing (G06N) in 7 records (58.3%). Smaller shares touch diagnosis and surgery (A61B) and enzyme or DNA measurement (C12Q), each at 2 records. The heavy overlap between the top three classes indicates claims typically bundle the omics-fusion pipeline with its machine-learning scoring step rather than treating them as separate inventions.
The filing trend shows activity rising sharply into 2025, the peak year so far at 7 records, with 2026 already at 4 despite being a partial year at the data cut-off. Combined with a shallow assignee ranking of only 12 companies and no single dominant holder, the field still has room for a well-scoped new filing. That said, publication lag means true 2026 filing volume is understated in this data, so a freedom-to-operate check against the most recent applications is worth doing before committing to a specific claim scope.
Go past this page: query the whole multi-omics data integration using gradient boosting ensemble patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("multi-omics" OR "multi omics") AND ("gradient boosting" OR XGBoost) AND (integrat* OR fusion))
Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (G16B) carries 66.7% of the published records, so this search returned a classification-tight set.
What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.
Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list. Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 12 of the 12 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 12 is not every filer. One published record can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included
Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved shortly before the publication date shown above.
Legal status. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. Get the status breakdown in Eureka
Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level
Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.
Help us improve
Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.
This page