ArticleCommunications medicine2024
Multiomics biomarkers were not superior to clinical variables for pan-cancer screening.
Article in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of clinical and proteomic risk factors enhances prognostic modelling of incident vascular complications in type 2 diabetes.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2026Article
- Review
- Combining Spatial Transcriptomics, Pseudotime, and Machine Learning Enables Discovery of Biomarkers for Prostate Cancer.Cancer research · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundCancer screening tests are considered pivotal for early diagnosis and survival. However, the efficacy of these tests for improving survival has recently been questioned. This study aims to test if cancer screening could be improved by biomarkers in peripheral blood based on multi-omics data.
methodsWe utilize multi-omics data from 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank. Machine learning is applied to search for proteins, metabolites, genetic variants, or clinical variables to diagnose cancers collectively and individually.
resultsHere we show that the overall performance of the potential blood biomarkers do not outperform clinical variables for collective diagnosis. However, we observe promising results for individual cancers in close proximity to peripheral blood, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) greater than 0.8.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that the identification of blood biomarkers for cancer might be complicated by variable overlap between molecular changes in tumor tissues and peripheral blood. This explanation is supported by local proteomics analyses of different tumors, which all show high AUCs, greater than 0.9. Thus, multi-omics biomarkers for the diagnosis of individual cancers may potentially be effective, but not for groups of cancers.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.