Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41772255›Full record

ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026

An interpretable breast cancer risk stratification model via multi-omics integration: multi-method development and cross-cohort validation.

Weirong Xue, Xiaoxiao Zhu, Guangshuang Zhou, Changqing Xu, Yi Sun, Yingliang Jin

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Weirong XueDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou, 221000, Jiangsu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-1095-1874
Xiaoxiao ZhuDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou, 221000, Jiangsu, China.
Guangshuang ZhouDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou, 221000, Jiangsu, China.
Changqing XuDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou, 221000, Jiangsu, China.
Yi SunDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou, 221000, Jiangsu, China.
Yingliang JinDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Center for Medical Statistics and Data Analysis, Key Laboratory of Human Genetics and Environmental Medicine Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou, 221000, Jiangsu, China. spark9809@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9346-4936

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer remains a formidable global health challenge, and the absence of suitable survival guidance models persists, with most existing models suffering from methodological limitations, inadequate comparisons, and lack of external validation.

methodsThe data used in this study were obtained from the latest version of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. A total of 1063 samples were randomly divided into a training cohort (n = 745) and a testing cohort (n = 318) in a 7:3 ratio. The training cohort was then randomly divided into a training set (n = 558) and a validation set (n = 187) in a 3:1 ratio. The training set was used for the model to learn data features, while the validation set was used to evaluate and select optimal hyperparameter combinations. The testing cohort was used to assess the performance of all models and determine the final selection. The ultimately established model was subsequently evaluated in an independent validation cohort and compared with outstanding models from prior studies.

resultsThe final conclusion demonstrates that multi-omics models are superior to single-omics models. Among multi-omics models, multi-kernel learning approaches outperform other single-kernel methods. An independent external validation set demonstrates robust generalization performance when confronted with unseen data.

conclusionThe study developed a new risk stratification model for cancer patients based on a multi-omics integration approach. Our work holds promise for supporting stratification, precision therapy, and prognostic prediction in cancer patients.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMultiomicsPrognosisRisk AssessmentBreast cancerDeep learningGeneMachine learningMulti-omics

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.