Cited by 263Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksScience, Research, and Medicine

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 189 of the 189 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Big data in basic and translational cancer research

Open access
Jiang, Peng, Sinha, Sanju, Aldape, Kenneth, Hannenhalli, Sridhar, Sahinalp, Cenk, Ruppin, Eytan·2022·Nature Reviews Cancer

Abstract

Historically, the primary focus of cancer research has been molecular and clinical studies of a few essential pathways and genes. Recent years have seen the rapid accumulation of large-scale cancer omics data catalysed by breakthroughs in high-throughput technologies. This fast data growth has given rise to an evolving concept of 'big data' in cancer, whose analysis demands large computational resources and can potentially bring novel insights into essential questions. Indeed, the combination of big data, bioinformatics and artificial intelligence has led to notable advances in our basic understanding of cancer biology and to translational advancements. Further advances will require a concerted effort among data scientists, clinicians, biologists and policymakers. Here, we review the current state of the art and future challenges for harnessing big data to advance cancer research and treatment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41568-022-00502-0

Cites

189 of 189 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 188 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Raghu, M., Zhang, C., Kleinberg, J. & Bengio, S. Transfusion: understanding transfer learning for medical imaging. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 3347–3357 (2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Jiang, P., Sinha, S., Aldape, K., Hannenhalli, S., Sahinalp, C., & Ruppin, E.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
  • Jiang, Peng
  • Ruppin, Eytan
Venue
Nature Reviews Cancer
Published
2022-09-05
Volume
22
Issue
11
Pages
625-639
ISSN
  • 1474-175X (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-1768
OpenAlex
W4294636450
Cited by
254
References
188
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 4
FWCI
6.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Science, Research, and Medicine
Keywords
big data, cancer research, cancer omics, data integration, bioinformatics, artificial intelligence, biomarker discovery, clinical trials, cancer treatment development, high-throughput technologies
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Neoplasms, Computational Biology, Biomedical Research, Proteomics, Translational Research, Biomedical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review