ArticleScientific reports2025
An immunohistochemistry-based classification of colorectal cancer resembling the consensus molecular subtypes using convolutional neural networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- R-loops in colorectal cancer: mechanisms, mapping strategies, and therapeutic opportunities.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence for Molecular Biomarker Identification in Gastrointestinal and Hepatobiliary Cancers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- The Role of Gut Microbiota in Colorectal Cancer Pathogenesis: A Comprehensive Literature Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The Heterogeneous Interplay Between Metabolism and Mitochondrial Activity in Colorectal Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Consensus Molecular Subtypes (CMS) Classification: a progress towards Subtype-Driven treatments in colorectal cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Mechanism of ABCD3 inhibiting colorectal cancer progression by regulating Wnt/β-catenin.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a major global disease burden with nearly 1 million cancer-related deaths annually. TNM staging has served as the foundation for predicting patient prognosis, despite variation across staging groups. The consensus molecular subtype (CMS) is a transcriptome-based system classifying CRC tumors into four subtypes with different characteristics: CMS1 (immune), CMS2 (canonical), CMS3 (metabolic), and CMS4 (mesenchymal). Transcriptomics is too complex and expensive for clinical implementation; therefore, an immunohistochemical method is needed. The prognostic impact of the immunohistochemistry-based four CMS-like subtypes remains unclear. Due to the complexity and costs associated with transcriptomics, we developed an immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based method supported by convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to define subgroups that resemble CMS biological characteristics. Building on previous IHC-classifiers and incorporating β-catenin to refine differentiation between CMS2- and CMS3-like profiles, we categorized CRC tumors in a cohort of 538 patients. Classification was successful in 89.4% and 15.9% of tumors were classified as CMS1-like, 35.1% as CMS2-like, 38.7% as CMS3-like, and 11.7% as CMS4-like. CMS2-like patients exhibited the best overall survival (p = 0.018), including when local and metastasized disease were analyzed separately. Our method offers an accessible and clinically feasible CMS-inspired classification, although it does not serve as a replacement for transcriptomic CMS classification.
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.