Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41495240›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2026

Discovery of predictive biomarkers for cancer therapy through computational approaches.

Xin Wang, Julia Nguyen, Kristen Nader, Mitro Miihkinen, Patrick Wall, Akshat Singhal, Philippe L Bedard, Trey Ideker, Tero Aittokallio, Benjamin Haibe-Kains

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Journey: From Early Promise to Lasting Impact.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

10 authors.

Xin Wang *Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6292-3087
Julia Nguyen *Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-4715-5150
Kristen NaderInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), HiLIFE, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1068-0831
Mitro MiihkinenInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), HiLIFE, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6822-3647
Patrick WallDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Akshat SinghalDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5371-526X
Philippe L BedardPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Trey IdekerDepartment of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. tideker@health.ucsd.edu.
Tero AittokallioInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), HiLIFE, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. tero.aittokallio@helsinki.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0886-9769
Benjamin Haibe-KainsDepartment of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. benjamin.haibe-kains@uhn.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision oncology involves the use of predictive biomarkers to personalize treatment. However, for most cancer therapeutics or combination regimens, effective biomarkers have been elusive. This challenge has fuelled efforts to interrogate increasingly diverse and complex clinical and molecular determinants of treatment response. Some molecular predictors have been identified (for example, based on analysis of transcriptomic or imaging data), although the limited reproducibility and robustness of many of these candidate biomarkers make them difficult to apply in clinical practice. Moreover, different types of predictor must often be combined to optimize treatment selection (for example, gene signatures plus patient characteristics). Computational methods, including machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches, provide opportunities to identify predictive patterns in both clinical data and preclinical datasets and to predict treatment response for individual patients. Such approaches also offer opportunities to predict the efficacy or synergy of drug combinations, for example, via extrapolation from correlations of monotherapy responses or by linking the cellular responses observed in preclinical drug screens with molecular and clinical data from patients. In this Review, we describe the application of computational methods to predictive biomarker discovery, including current progress, key challenges facing this field, and future opportunities.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorComputational BiologyNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineArtificial IntelligenceHumansMachine LearningBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.