Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42168331›Full record

ReviewBJC reports2026

Machine learning and artificial intelligence in liquid biopsy-based early detection of pancreatic cancer: a scoping review.

Joy Ku, Meenakshi Singhal, Margaret Burnette, Samar A Hegazy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJC reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Joy KuCarle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Meenakshi SinghalCarle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Margaret BurnetteUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Samar A HegazyCarle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA. hegazy@illinois.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presents as a cancer with an especially poor prognosis, largely due to the challenges surrounding its early diagnosis. Liquid biopsy has emerged as a promising, noninvasive method for screening across a variety of cancers. This approach is limited, however, by the extensive heterogeneity of biological samples, a challenge that teams are looking to address using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) strategies. By harnessing the ability of ML algorithms to extract the most salient features from complex datasets, researchers can identify biomarkers with high predictive value for PDAC. This review explores the current landscape of AI-powered liquid biopsy for early PDAC diagnosis, focusing on specific techniques and their respective degrees of success. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, 85 studies were extracted from PubMed and Scopus with a final 18 studies included. The majority of papers utilized blood (n = 15) as the source of liquid biopsy, with the remainder analyzing urine, bile, or cyst fluid. Random forests (n = 9) and support vector machines (n = 7) were the most frequently implemented ML models, while two papers focused on deep learning methods. Limitations include the lack of standardized reporting for model performance metrics and small cohort sizes with non-granular labels.

Identifiers

PMID42168331
PMCPMC13195041

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.