Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40794097›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2025

Recommendations for Validating Omics Prediction Models: Insights from a Lung Cancer RNA Biomarker Study.

Luca Pestarino, Renée Turzanski Fortner, Therese H Nøst, Ioannis Fotopoulos, Ilona Urbarova, Oluf D Røe, Hilde Langseth, Trine Ballestad Rounge

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Luca PestarinoDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7097-2954
Renée Turzanski FortnerDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-1426-8505
Therese H NøstDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6805-3094
Ioannis FotopoulosDepartment of Computer Science, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.ORCID 0009-0006-3398-3498
Ilona UrbarovaDepartment of Community Medicine, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-6626-2917
Oluf D RøeDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-4870-5822
Hilde Langseth *Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9446-4855
Trine Ballestad Rounge *Department of Pharmacy, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2677-2722

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd (Forskningsrådet) 229621/H10Norges Forskningsråd (Forskningsrådet) 248792/H10Norges Forskningsråd (Forskningsrådet) 338506Universitetet i Oslo (UiO) Life Science Growth House funds
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExternal validation of predictive models in medical research is crucial to ensure their generalizability and applicability across diverse populations. However, validation often reveals discrepancies in model performance due to cohort differences, sample collection and storage, overfitting, and inconsistencies in data handling. This study investigates the challenges encountered during external validation of predictive models for early lung cancer detection using small RNA biomarkers, tying these challenges to specific validation outcomes and deriving recommendations.

methodsPredictive models based on the XGBoost algorithm, developed from serum samples in the JanusRNA cohort, were externally validated in two independent Norwegian cohorts: HUNT and Norwegian Women and Cancer Study. These cohorts differed in sample types, RNA abundance, library preparation protocols, and lung cancer histologic classification. Strategies to harmonize data processing and address these discrepancies were used to ensure a robust validation process.

resultsValidation revealed significant challenges due to cohort heterogeneity. Median AUC values ranged from 0.50 to 0.66 in validation cohorts, compared with 0.62 to 0.76 in the original models. Models performed worse in the female-only Norwegian Women and Cancer Study cohort, in which plasma was used, highlighting the impact of sample type and cohort characteristics on predictive accuracy.

conclusionBased on the challenges encountered during validation, we propose seven recommendations to guide robust external validation of omics-based predictive models, including harmonizing data processing across cohorts, reevaluating overfitting, and critically assessing model performance for clinical applications. IMPACT: By highlighting practical issues in model validation and providing recommendations, this study supports more reliable and clinically applicable biomarker-based prediction models, ultimately aiding cancer screening and prevention efforts.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorLung NeoplasmsAgedCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID40794097
PMCPMC12491951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.