ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
IDAP: an integrated literature- and knowledge-graph-driven evidence prioritization pipeline for precision oncology.
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.
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.
- Mapping the Evolutionary Landscape of Solid Tumor Immunotherapy: A Quarter-Century Bibliometric Analysis of the Title-Defined Core Literature (2000-2025).International journal of medical sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.