Evidence mapPaperPMID 41153261Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2025

From Lab to Clinic: Artificial Intelligence with Spectroscopic Liquid Biopsies.

Rose G McHardy, James M Cameron, David Andrew Eustace, Matthew J Baker, David S Palmer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Rose G McHardyDxcover Ltd., Royal College Building, 204 George Street, Glasgow G1 1RX, UK.
James M CameronDxcover Ltd., Royal College Building, 204 George Street, Glasgow G1 1RX, UK.
David Andrew EustaceDxcover Ltd., Royal College Building, 204 George Street, Glasgow G1 1RX, UK.
Matthew J BakerDxcover Ltd., Royal College Building, 204 George Street, Glasgow G1 1RX, UK.
David S PalmerDxcover Ltd., Royal College Building, 204 George Street, Glasgow G1 1RX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over recent years, machine learning and artificial intelligence have become critical components of many cancer detection tests, in particular multi-omic tests such as spectroscopic liquid biopsies. The complexity and multi-variate nature of spectral datasets makes machine learning invaluable in uncovering patterns that enable robust differentiation of cancer signals. However, introducing any AI-enabled medical device into clinical practice is challenging due to the regulatory requirements needed to progress from fundamental research to clinical and patient use. This review explores some of the fundamental concerns in bringing spectroscopic liquid biopsies to the clinic, including the need for explainable artificial intelligence and diverse validation sets. Addressing these issues is essential to accelerate clinical uptake with the ultimate goal of improving patient survival and quality of life.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecancercancer diagnosisliquid biopsymachine learningvibrational spectroscopy

Identifiers

PMID41153261
PMCPMC12564581

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.