Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42105215›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026

IDAP: an integrated literature- and knowledge-graph-driven evidence prioritization pipeline for precision oncology.

Yebin Ryu, Ha-Eun Jeong, Joon-Yong An

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Yebin RyuDepartment of Integrated Biomedical and Life Science, Korea University, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea.
Ha-Eun JeongDepartment of Integrated Biomedical and Life Science, Korea University, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea.
Joon-Yong AnDepartment of Integrated Biomedical and Life Science, Korea University, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8839-6297

Funding

Korea government (Ministry of Science and ICT and Ministry of Education) RS-2025-16652968Korea UniversityKorea University BK21 FOUR Academic WritingMinistry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea RS-2025-02303925National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationAdvances in tumor sequencing enable routine detection of dozens to hundreds of somatic alterations per patient, yet only a minority can be linked to established therapeutic evidence. Curated resources such as OncoKB provide high-quality variant-drug annotations but remain limited in coverage, particularly for rare or low-frequency variants. This coverage gap motivates computational frameworks that can integrate curated, literature-derived, graph-based, and clinical-trial evidence to prioritize therapeutic hypotheses for expert review.

resultsWe developed the Integrated Drug Annotation Pipeline (IDAP), a modular framework that combines four complementary evidence streams: curated variant-drug associations from OncoKB, literature-derived gene-drug mention counts from PubMed abstracts, graph-based drug prioritization using a TxGNN-derived biomedical knowledge graph, and cancer-specific clinical-trial evidence from ClinicalTrials.gov. Given a cancer type and a MAF file, IDAP generates patient-level reports summarizing detected variants, ranked therapeutic hypotheses, supporting evidence layers, and relevant clinical trials. Evaluated across five cancer types (n = 50 samples), IDAP expanded evidence-linked therapeutic hypotheses beyond curated databases alone. Among patients without OncoKB recommendations (26/50), IDAP identified a median of 87 candidate drugs (range: 2-473). To reduce cross-source scale imbalance, the final ranking used within-sample percentile normalization with fixed bonuses for curated evidence, multi-source support, and trial linkage. Under this revised ranking, 24/50 top-ranked candidates were supported by at least two evidence sources and 44/50 had associated ClinicalTrials metadata. In an exploratory external CIViC comparison, IDAP recovered at least one matched CIViC-supported therapy in 28/41 eligible samples, with 13/41 appearing within the top 10 candidates. These outputs are intended to support evidence triage and translational interpretation rather than direct treatment recommendation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: IDAP is freely available at https://github.com/joonan-lab/IDAP-pipeline, with full documentation at https://joonan-lab.github.io/IDAP-pipeline. An archived snapshot of the code used in this study is deposited on Zenodo (DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19301367).

Indexed as

Computational BiologyMedical OncologyNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineSoftwareAntineoplastic AgentsBiocurationHumansAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID42105215
PMCPMC13197120

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.