❌

Normal view

Received β€” 18 September 2026 ⏭ (Multiomics OR Omics) AND (Lung OR gastric OR Hepatocellular)

Artificial Intelligence-Driven Multiomics and Clinical Investigation Identify Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor as a Pan-Cancer Biomarker

Phenomics. 2026 May 20;6(3):213-229. doi: 10.1007/s43657-026-00322-4. eCollection 2026 Jun.

ABSTRACT

Early cancer detection remains challenging due to the lack of reliable pan-cancer screening methods, particularly blood-based biomarkers. Using a novel three-tiered validation framework combining artificial intelligence (AI)-powered literature mining of 180,000 PubMed articles (1950-2024), multiomics integration across major databases, and extensive clinical validation, we identified macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) as a promising blood-based biomarker for pan-cancer detection. Multiomics analysis revealed consistent MIF upregulation across 21 cancer types at the transcriptional level and across 12 cancer types at the protein level. Clinical validation in independent cohorts (n = 4,269) showed that serum MIF protein levels discriminated effectively between cancer patients and healthy controls (median AUC = 0.994) and between cancer and benign conditions (median AUC = 0.881). Notably, comparative analyses showed that MIF demonstrated superior or comparable performance to established cancer-specific markers, including AFP for hepatocellular carcinoma (MIF AUC = 0.885 vs. AFP AUC: 0.744-0.887) and CA125 for ovarian cancer (MIF AUC = 0.831 vs. CA125 AUC: 0.58-0.71). Meta-analysis of 28 cohorts (n = 5,347) confirmed the diagnostic efficacy of MIF (pooled AUC: 0.782). This cost-effective, blood-based ELISA approach establishes MIF as a valuable tool for broad applications in cancer screening.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s43657-026-00322-4.

PMID:42750739 | PMC:PMC13578188 | DOI:10.1007/s43657-026-00322-4

Received β€” 2 April 2026 ⏭ (Multiomics OR Omics) AND (Lung OR gastric OR Hepatocellular)

Microbiome and metabolite signatures for cirrhosis to HCC risk stratification: progress, controversies, and gaps

Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2026 Mar 16;16:1793213. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2026.1793213. eCollection 2026.

ABSTRACT

The progression from cirrhosis to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a key outcome in the management of chronic liver disease. This process has a long incubation period and significant individual differences, making early warning still difficult. Clinical follow-up mainly relies on imaging examinations and alpha fetoprotein, but the ability to identify high risk precancerous states is limited. The imbalance of gut microbiota and its metabolites may occur earlier than the visible stage of tumors. They can affect barrier integrity, chronic inflammation, immune surveillance, and metabolic homeostasis through the gut liver axis, and participate in the formation of a pro tumor microenvironment. Therefore, such changes may provide more upstream risk stratification clues for the population with cirrhosis. This article summarizes previous research evidence and summarizes the common microbiome and metabolite characteristics of cirrhosis and high-risk populations, including a decrease in short chain fatty acid (SCFA) related symbiotic bacteria, an increase in inflammation related bacteria, bile acid spectrum shift, and other intestinal derived metabolite abnormalities. This article also outlines the key mechanisms that these features may correspond to, such as barrier damage and microbial translocation, immune suppression, etc. There are still significant uncertainties at present. The effect of SCFA is context dependent. Different etiologies, diets, medications, and complications can lead to significant confounding and affect cross cohort consistency. Subsequent research requires longitudinal cohort validation and the promotion of multi omics integration and the construction of interpretable predictive models to support clinical translation.

PMID:41918873 | PMC:PMC13033666 | DOI:10.3389/fcimb.2026.1793213

❌