Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41413182›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Multi-omics driven computational framework for cancer molecular subtype classification.

Ahtisham Fazeel Abbasi, Muhammad Sajjad, Muhammad Nabeel Asim, Sebastian Vollmer, Andreas Dengel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Ahtisham Fazeel AbbasiDepartment of Computer Science, Rhineland Palatinate Technical University of Kaiserslautern-Landau (RPTU), Kaiserslautern, 67663, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. ahtisham.abbasi@dfki.de.
Muhammad SajjadDepartment of Computer Science, Rhineland Palatinate Technical University of Kaiserslautern-Landau (RPTU), Kaiserslautern, 67663, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany.
Muhammad Nabeel AsimSmart Data and Knowledge Services (SDS), German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Kaiserslautern, 67663, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany.
Sebastian VollmerDepartment of Computer Science, Rhineland Palatinate Technical University of Kaiserslautern-Landau (RPTU), Kaiserslautern, 67663, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany.
Andreas DengelDepartment of Computer Science, Rhineland Palatinate Technical University of Kaiserslautern-Landau (RPTU), Kaiserslautern, 67663, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Computational BiologyGenomicsNeoplasmsHumansMachine LearningMultiomicsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID41413182
PMCPMC12717050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.