ArticleCancer informatics2026
AI in Cancer Prognosis: A Systematic Review of Multimodal Models Combining Pathology Images and High-Throughput Omics.
Article in Cancer informatics, 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.
- When Cancer Research Met Artificial Intelligence: From Machine Learning to Intelligent Oncology.Cancers · 2026Article
- Editorial: Methods for imaging and omics data science: advances, applications, and spatiotemporal innovations.Frontiers in genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study systematically reviews and evaluates published research on machine learning models that integrate histopathology whole slide images and high-throughput -omic data to predict overall survival in cancer. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted through August 12, 2024, with citation screening for additional studies. Eligible studies applied machine learning or deep learning methods to multimodal data combining pathology images and -omics. Data extraction followed the CHARMS checklist, and risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST + AI tool. Narrative synthesis was conducted in line with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Forty-eight studies published since 2017 met inclusion criteria, spanning 19 cancer types. All relied on The Cancer Genome Atlas dataset. Modelling approaches included regularised Cox regression (n = 4), classical machine learning (n = 13), and deep learning (n = 31). Reported concordance indices ranged from 0.550 to 0.857, with most multimodal models outperforming unimodal counterparts. However, all studies were assessed as having high or unclear risk of bias-most often due to limited external validation, insufficient reporting, and minimal assessment of clinical utility. This review highlights a rapidly evolving yet methodologically underdeveloped field. While model performance is promising, improvements in data standardisation, reporting practices, and real-world contextualisation are critical for clinical translation. This work was funded by the National Pathology Imaging Cooperative (NPIC), supported by UK Research and Innovation (Project no. 104687).
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.