Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39056632›Full record

ReviewBiosensors2024

AI-Assisted Detection of Biomarkers by Sensors and Biosensors for Early Diagnosis and Monitoring.

Tomasz Wasilewski, Wojciech Kamysz, Jacek Gębicki

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biosensors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Post-fasciotomy complications in lower extremity acute compartment syndrome: a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tomasz WasilewskiDepartment of Inorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Gdansk, Hallera 107, 80-416 Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4454-7246
Wojciech KamyszDepartment of Inorganic Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Gdansk, Hallera 107, 80-416 Gdansk, Poland.
Jacek GębickiDepartment of Process Engineering and Chemical Technology, Faculty of Chemistry, Gdansk University of Technology, Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-4786-8363

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The steady progress in consumer electronics, together with improvement in microflow techniques, nanotechnology, and data processing, has led to implementation of cost-effective, user-friendly portable devices, which play the role of not only gadgets but also diagnostic tools. Moreover, numerous smart devices monitor patients' health, and some of them are applied in point-of-care (PoC) tests as a reliable source of evaluation of a patient's condition. Current diagnostic practices are still based on laboratory tests, preceded by the collection of biological samples, which are then tested in clinical conditions by trained personnel with specialistic equipment. In practice, collecting passive/active physiological and behavioral data from patients in real time and feeding them to artificial intelligence (AI) models can significantly improve the decision process regarding diagnosis and treatment procedures via the omission of conventional sampling and diagnostic procedures while also excluding the role of pathologists. A combination of conventional and novel methods of digital and traditional biomarker detection with portable, autonomous, and miniaturized devices can revolutionize medical diagnostics in the coming years. This article focuses on a comparison of traditional clinical practices with modern diagnostic techniques based on AI and machine learning (ML). The presented technologies will bypass laboratories and start being commercialized, which should lead to improvement or substitution of current diagnostic tools. Their application in PoC settings or as a consumer technology accessible to every patient appears to be a real possibility. Research in this field is expected to intensify in the coming years. Technological advancements in sensors and biosensors are anticipated to enable the continuous real-time analysis of various omics fields, fostering early disease detection and intervention strategies. The integration of AI with digital health platforms would enable predictive analysis and personalized healthcare, emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in related scientific fields.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomarkersBiosensing TechniquesEarly DiagnosisHumansMachine LearningPoint-of-Care SystemsBiomarkersartificial intelligencebioelectronicsbiomarkersbiosensorsmachine learningsensors

Identifiers

PMID39056632
PMCPMC11274923

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.