ReviewJournal of advanced research2026
Biomaterials for biomarker imaging and detection.
Review in Journal of advanced research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exosome-loaded nanoradiosensitizers in radiotherapy for preventing post-irradiation tumor recurrence: mechanisms, preclinical evidence, and translational challenges.Discover nano · 2026Review
- Flatland Metasurfaces for Optical Gas Sensing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the realm of biomedical research and clinical practice, the identification and accurate detection of biomarkers have become increasingly critical. Biomarkers serve as key indicators for disease diagnosis, prognosis evaluation, and drug efficacy monitoring, playing a pivotal role in advancing personalized medicine. However, the complexity and diversity of biomarkers pose significant challenges to their detection and imaging. Traditional methods, such as immunoassays, nucleic acid detection, and mass spectrometry, often fall short in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency. Consequently, there is an urgent need for more precise and efficient technologies to enhance the detection of biomarkers. AIM OF REVIEW: This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the latest advancements in biomaterials for biomarker imaging and detection. It seeks to highlight the critical role of biomarkers in disease diagnosis and management, while exploring the potential of newly developed biomaterials to overcome the limitations of conventional detection methods. KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW: The review delves into the unique physicochemical properties of biomaterials, such as nanoparticles, quantum dots (QDs), and biopolymers, which enable highly sensitive, specific, and high-resolution biomarker detection. This review finds that by integrating their molecular recognition mechanisms with advanced imaging technologies, these biomaterials demonstrate significant advantages in detecting biomarkers for major diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), and neurodegenerative diseases. For instance, nanoparticle-based probes can detect tumor markers at extremely low concentrations, while QD imaging techniques enable high-resolution imaging at the cellular and tissue levels. Additionally, this review provides an in-depth discussion of the numerous challenges confronting biomaterial-based detection technologies during clinical translation and proposes future research directions. We emphasize the necessity of accelerating the development of innovative materials, optimizing imaging and detection technologies, and facilitating clinical application translation.
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.