ReviewCancers2025
Scaling for African Inclusion in High-Throughput Whole Cancer Genome Bioinformatic Workflows.
Review in Cancers, 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.
- Africa's emerging role in precision oncology: translational insights from the harnessing functional genomics in cancer research conference, Windhoek, 23-26 September 2025.BMC proceedings · 2026Article
- Epigenetic modulation of prostate cancer disparities in men with African ancestry.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Single base focal hypermutation cooccurs with structural variation as an early event in advanced prostate tumourigenesis with ancestry specific independence: a multi-ancestral observational study.Genome medicine · 2026Observational
- Breast Cancer Disparities in African and African-Ancestry Populations: Genetics, Epigenetics, Structural Barriers and Technology-Enabled Solutions.British journal of biomedical science · 2026Review
- Single base focal hypermutation cooccurs with structural variation as an early event in advanced prostate tumourigenesis with ancestry specific independence: a multi-ancestral observational study.Research square · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing the highest mortality rates for several cancer types. While cancer research globally has entered the genomic era and advanced the deployment of precision oncology, Africa has largely been excluded and has received few benefits from tumour profiling. Through a thorough literature review, we identified only five whole cancer genome databases that include patients from Sub-Saharan Africa, covering four cancer types (breast, esophageal, prostate, and Burkitt lymphoma). Irrespective of cancer type, these studies report higher tumour genome instability, including African-specific cancer drivers and mutational signatures, suggesting unique contributory mechanisms at play. Reviewing bioinformatic tools applied to African databases, we carefully select a workflow suitable for large-scale African resources, which incorporates cohort-level data and a scalable design for time and computational efficiency. Using African genomic data, we demonstrate the scalability achieved by high-level parallelism through physical data or genomic interval chunking strategies. Furthermore, we provide a rationale for improving current workflows for African data, including the adoption of more genomic techniques and the prioritisation of African-derived datasets for diverse applications. Together, these enhancements and genomic scaling strategies serve as practical computational guidance, lowering technical barriers for future large-scale African-inclusive research and ultimately helping to reduce the disparity gap in cancer mortality rates across Sub-Saharan Africa.
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.