ReviewCancers2026
Defining a Multi-Omic, AI-Enabled Stool Screening Paradigm for Colorectal Cancer: A Consensus Framework for Clinical Translation.
Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The dual roles ofFrontiers in oncology · 2026Review
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
Colorectal cancer (CRC) develops through both conventional adenoma-carcinoma and serrated neoplasia pathways, yet noninvasive screening still under-detects the advanced precursor lesions that enable true cancer prevention. Stool-based screening reduces CRC mortality, but its preventive impact remains constrained by limited detection of advanced precancerous lesions (APLs), including advanced adenomas and sessile serrated lesions. Next-generation multitarget stool DNA assays (mt-sDNA; e.g., Cologuard Plus) have established high sensitivity for CRC and specificity approaching 94%, leaving improved APL detection as the principal opportunity for innovation. This review presents a consensus framework for a multi-omic stool screening paradigm that integrates host epigenetic markers (DNA methylation) with gut microbiome features using artificial intelligence (AI). Multi-omics capture complementary layers of early tumor biology: epithelial shedding and field effects reflected in host methylation signals together with luminal ecological and inflammatory changes represented by microbial features. Evidence from cross-cohort microbiome studies indicates that microbial signatures provide an additive-rather than standalone-axis of information for CRC and its precursor lesions. Because microbiome-based models are highly susceptible to batch effects arising from collection devices, extraction chemistry, sequencing platforms, and bioinformatic pipelines, practical mitigation strategies are outlined, including harmonized pre-analytics, batch-aware study design, leakage-resistant validation, and computational harmonization. A translational roadmap linking analytical validity, locked-model development, and prospective colonoscopy-verified clinical validation is proposed, aligned with TRIPOD + AI, STARD, PROBAST-AI, SPIRIT-AI, CONSORT-AI, and DECIDE-AI reporting standards. Scenario modeling using BLUE-C prevalence estimates suggests that improving APL sensitivity from approximately 43% to 55-65% at ~94% specificity could translate to detecting roughly 13-23 additional advanced precancerous lesions per 1000 individuals screened, highlighting the potential prevention impact of a multi-omic approach. This framework aims to guide developers and clinical investigators toward next-generation stool tests capable of materially improving precursor-lesion detection while maintaining clinically acceptable specificity.
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.