ArticleGenome medicine2026
DNA methylation biomarkers-based pan-cancer classifier: predictive modeling for cancer classification.
Article in Genome medicine, 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.
- DNA methylation biomarkers-based pan-cancer classifier: predictive modeling for cancer classification.Genome medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMachine-learning (ML) driven molecular diagnostics based on omics data has a potential to revolutionize personalized medicine. However, implementation of ML into diagnostic protocols is hindered by methodological challenges which often lead to inflated performance assessment of models during development followed by poor performance of these models in implementation phase. Here, we aimed to develop and validate a pan-cancer classification framework based on DNA methylation data, that addresses methodological challenges of omics data powered ML.
methodsWe curated a primary dataset of DNA methylation profiles for 10756 samples, that included 54 healthy and cancer tissue types and validation dataset comprising data for 2306 samples from 28 independent studies. The classification framework was build using custom biomarkers selection strategy based on effect size metric that considers variance and class imbalance. The ML models were trained, tuned and evaluated using nested cross-validation approach. Local outlier factor algorithm was built into the inference pipelines to identify and filter samples displaying technical or biological anomalies. Additionally, for methodological validation of our framework we used methylation profiles for 3905 central nervous system (CNS) tumors.
resultsWe found that relatively simple ML models outperformed complex algorithms such as deep neural network. A logistic regression classifier achieved a balanced accuracy (BACC) of 0.90 to classify 54 cancer and healthy tissue types using methylation levels at 1208 CpG sites. Similarly, our CNS tumor classifier also based on logistic regression algorithm reached a BACC of 0.94 across 59 CNS tumor subtypes. The anomaly filtering improved performance across all categories of samples tested.
conclusionsOur study demonstrates that DNA methylation profiling, when combined with carefully controlled ML practices allows for development of robust solutions that might substantially increase the efficacy of oncological diagnosis. Finally, we deployed our inference pipelines for public access via secure web platform - https://opp.pum.edu.pl/ .
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.