ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Quantifying uncertainty of predictions from cancer progression models.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationCancer progresses through the accumulation of genomic events. Cancer progression models such as Mutual Hazard Networks (MHNs) describe this dynamic, enabling prediction of temporal event positions and patient-specific risks of acquiring mutations. However, current MHN analyses rely on single most likely models and do not quantify the uncertainty inherent to parameter estimation. Assessing forecast stability is essential before using them to anticipate treatment-relevant mutations, adapt targeted therapies, or prioritize monitoring of patients at elevated progression risk.
resultsWe address a key prerequisite for the responsible clinical use of cancer progression models by making MHN-derived predictions uncertainty-aware. We present a Bayesian framework for MHN that uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo to sample from the posterior distributions of model parameters and derived predictions. For practical use we implemented the Random-Walk Metropolis, Metropolis-Adjusted Langevin Algorithm (MALA), and simplified manifold MALA samplers as part of the existing mhn Python package. Only MALA and smMALA were successful in sampling from MHN posteriors, with MALA performing best. While most MHN parameters and predictions showed low posterior variance, a small subset displayed greater variability across the posterior distribution. This differentiation cannot be obtained from a single most likely model, emphasizing the need for uncertainty quantification, especially in clinical contexts. As an illustrative example, posterior sampling identified a subgroup of STK11$-$, KRAS$+$ lung adenocarcinoma patients with a high predicted short-term risk-with low variance across posterior samples-to develop an STK11 mutation. This subgroup exhibited poorer survival under immunotherapy, resembling patterns observed in STK11+ patients. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our implementation is part of version 1.2.0 of the mhn package (https://github.com/spang-lab/LearnMHN). All analyses including the code to produce all figures in this article can be found under https://github.com/huy29433/MCMC-sampling-for-MHN (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21160219).
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.