ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Benchmarking computational methods for multi-omics biomarker discovery in cancer.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benchmarking computational methods for multi-omics biomarker discovery in cancer.Briefings in 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
Multi-omics profiling characterizes cancer biology and supports biomarker discovery for prognosis and therapy selection. Although numerous computational multi-omics biomarker identification methods have been proposed, their ability to identify clinically relevant biomarkers has not been systematically evaluated, leaving it unclear whether the resulting biomarker nominations are reliable for downstream validation. Here, we systematically benchmark 20 representative statistical, machine learning and deep learning methods using curated gold-standard prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers across five real-world datasets. We evaluate performance in terms of both biomarker identification accuracy and stability. Overall, DeePathNet and DeepKEGG achieve the best performance. Across methods, effective biomarker recovery is associated with the integration of biological knowledge, global feature interactions, multivariate feature attribution, and effective regularization. Analysis of omics type contributions reveals method- and modality-specific biases, highlighting the importance of broader omics integration. We further evaluate methods on simulated datasets to probe sensitivity with controlled signal and noise. By aggregating results from top-performing methods, we construct consensus biomarker panels that nominate candidates for potential investigations. Finally, we provide user-friendly interfaces to allow researchers to benchmark new methods against the 20 baselines or apply selected methods for biomarker identification on custom multi-omics datasets. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/athanzli/CancerMOBI-Bench.
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.