ArticleFrontiers in systems biology2026
The causal integration ladder: a multilevel evidence framework for therapeutic target evaluation in cervical cancer.
Article in Frontiers in systems biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical-cancer genomic studies nominate many altered genes, but the evidence needed to distinguish disease association from a causal, therapeutically tractable mechanism is rarely stated explicitly. We present the Causal Integration Ladder (CIL), an evidence-accounting framework that distinguishes Level I association, inherited Level II-G evidence, acquired Level II-S evidence, Level III computational and direct functional evidence, and Level IV translational validation, while treating viral etiology as an explicit context modifier. An exploratory TCGA-CESC screen (306 tumours, 3 normal samples) supplied 25 Level I candidates. HPV annotations were available for 291 primary tumours (280 positive, 9 negative, 2 indeterminate). Restriction to HPV-positive tumours preserved the direction of all 25 Level I effects; HPV-positive versus HPV-negative comparisons were exploratory because the negative group was small and histologically heterogeneous. Somatic analysis used 194 mutation-evaluable and 295 copy-number-evaluable tumours. Ten candidates showed false-discovery-rate-significant copy-number-expression associations, including CDKN2A, whereas recurrent protein-altering mutation was uncommon. Eight genes were additionally audited using public cis-eQTL, GWAS, dependency, pharmacogenomic, and cell-compartment resources. The revised CIL reports inherited, somatic, etiological, and functional evidence independently; absence of germline support is not interpreted as evidence against somatic, viral, or functional relevance. No observational result is presented as experimental validation, and Level III direct perturbation and Level IV translational claims remain prospective.
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.