ArticleScientific reports2025
Multi-omics driven computational framework for cancer molecular subtype classification.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the path to clinical implementation of multi-omics.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- A powerful representation learning method for enhanced analysis of incomplete multi-omics data.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Article
- Beyond chromatin accessibility: bulk ATAC-seq as an integrative assay to portray genomes and epigenomes.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer molecular subtype classification is an essential component of precision oncology which provides insights into cancer prognosis and guides targeted therapy. Despite the growing applications of AI for cancer molecular subtype classification, challenges persist due to non-standardized dataset configurations, diverse omics modalities, and inconsistent evaluation measures. These issues limit the comparability, reproducibility, and generalizability of AI classifiers across different cancers and hinder the development of robust and accurate AI-driven tools. This study performs comparative analyses of 35 unique AI classifiers across 153 datasets, covering 8 omics modalities and 20 different cancers. Particularly, it investigates 6 different research questions, and based on comprehensive performance analyses of the 35 AI classifiers it elucidates the research questions with the following answers: (i) out of 17 different configurations for 5 out of the 8 tested omics modalities, RPPA (RPPA), Gistic2-all-data-by-genes (CNV), HM27 (Meth), and HiSeqV2-exon (Exon) configurations consistently yield better performance; (ii) in terms of 8 omics modalities, RNASeq, miRNA, CNV, and Exon generally achieve higher macro-accuracy (MACC) compared to Meth., Array, SNP and RPPA; (iii) SNP and RPPA modalities are prone to biases due to technical noise; (iv) traditional machine learning (ML) models (SVM, XGB, HGB) perform best on small and low-dimensional datasets, while deep learning (DL) models (ResNet18, CNN, NN, MLP) excel on large and high-dimensional datasets; (v) SVM achieves the highest mean MACC across all classifiers, with NN, ResNet18, DEEPGENE, and MLP also demonstrate strong performance; and (vi) DL classifiers show superior MACC as compared to ML classifiers in 12 out of 20 cancers. The findings offer key insights to guide the development of standardized, robust, and efficient AI-driven pipelines for cancer molecular subtype classification. This study enhances reproducibility and facilitates better comparison across AI methods, ultimately advancing precision oncology.
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.