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.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Comment on "Toward Timely Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer: Revolutionizing Early Detection Through Genomics, Artificial Intelligence, and Noninvasive Biomarkers".Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Research Progress in Multi-Omics Analysis of Dairy Products: Nutritional Quality, Safety Evaluation, and Health Functions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A multicenter study of automatic segmentation-based multimodal fusion integrating radiomics, deep learning, and clinical parameters for prostate cancer detection.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Robustness Analyses Substantially Narrow in silico Network-Toxicology Signals Linking Selected Pharmaceuticals and Caffeine to Vitiligo.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.