ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Prediction of cancer driver genes and mutations: the potential of integrative computational frameworks.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Mutational Landscape of Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Its Impact.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Understanding Cancer Health Disparities.Cancers · 2026Review
- Integrative Sequencing and Proteogenomic Approaches to Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Cholangiocarcinoma: Implications for Precision Diagnosis and Therapy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Classification of driver and passenger mutations in different cancer types using deep neural networks.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Shaping Orthodontics of the Future: Concepts and Implications from a Cellular and Molecular Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A base editing platform for the correction of cancer driver mutations unmasks conserved p53 transcription programs.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Genomics and integrative clinical data machine learning scoring model to ascertain likely Lynch syndrome patients.BJC reports · 2025Article
- Revealing cancer driver genes through integrative transcriptomic and epigenomic analyses with Moonlight.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Network pharmacology and AI in cancer research uncovering biomarkers and therapeutic targets for RALGDS mutations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Decoding the functional impact of the cancer genome through protein-protein interactions.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2025Review
- An ensemble machine learning-based performance evaluation identifies top In-Silico pathogenicity prediction methods that best classify driver mutations in cancer.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Article
- Enhancing Molecular Network-Based Cancer Driver Gene Prediction Using Machine Learning Approaches: Current Challenges and Opportunities.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Review
- CDMPred: a tool for predicting cancer driver missense mutations with high-quality passenger mutations.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Review: Cancer and neurodevelopmental disorders: multi-scale reasoning and computational guide.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The vast amount of available sequencing data allows the scientific community to explore different genetic alterations that may drive cancer or favor cancer progression. Software developers have proposed a myriad of predictive tools, allowing researchers and clinicians to compare and prioritize driver genes and mutations and their relative pathogenicity. However, there is little consensus on the computational approach or a golden standard for comparison. Hence, benchmarking the different tools depends highly on the input data, indicating that overfitting is still a massive problem. One of the solutions is to limit the scope and usage of specific tools. However, such limitations force researchers to walk on a tightrope between creating and using high-quality tools for a specific purpose and describing the complex alterations driving cancer. While the knowledge of cancer development increases daily, many bioinformatic pipelines rely on single nucleotide variants or alterations in a vacuum without accounting for cellular compartments, mutational burden or disease progression. Even within bioinformatics and computational cancer biology, the research fields work in silos, risking overlooking potential synergies or breakthroughs. Here, we provide an overview of databases and datasets for building or testing predictive cancer driver tools. Furthermore, we introduce predictive tools for driver genes, driver mutations, and the impact of these based on structural analysis. Additionally, we suggest and recommend directions in the field to avoid silo-research, moving towards integrative frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.