ReviewBJC reports2026
Machine learning and artificial intelligence in liquid biopsy-based early detection of pancreatic cancer: a scoping review.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.