ArticleNature communications2025
Systems epigenetic approach towards non-invasive breast cancer detection.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- CNet-Cox for interpretable network biomarker discovery and survival risk scoring in precise breast cancer prognosis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Mapping Non-Coding Epimutations in Breast Cancer: Advancing Epigenetics Towards Precision Medicine.Sub-cellular biochemistry · 2026Review
- New Generation of Clinical Epigenetics Analysis and Diagnosis for Precision Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Functionally enriched epigenetic clocks reveal tissue-specific discordant aging patterns in individuals with cancer.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Systems epigenetic approach towards non-invasive breast cancer detection.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Validation of blood-based detection of breast cancer highlights importance for cross-population validation.Nature communications · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
No study has systematically compared the suitability of DNA methylation (DNAme) profiles in non-invasive samples for the detection of breast cancer (BC). We assess non-tumour DNAme in 1,100 cervical, buccal, and blood samples from BC cases and controls and find that cervical samples exhibit the largest nuber of differentially methylated sites, followed by buccal samples. No sites were significant in blood after FDR adjustment. Deriving DNAme-based classifiers for BC detection in each sample type (WID-buccal-, cervical-, or blood-BC), we achieve validation AUCs of 0.75, 0.66, and 0.51, respectively. Buccal and cervical BC-associated DNAme alterations distinguish between BC cases and controls in both surrogate and breast tissue (AUC > 0.88), yet individual sites and the directionality of methylation changes are not identical between these two sample types, and buccal sample DNAme aligns with breast methylation changes more closely. Pending additional validation, these insights may have the potential to improve non-invasive personalized BC prevention.
Indexed as
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.