SynthesisPloS one2026
Diagnostic accuracy of circulating microRNAs and lipidomic biomarkers for early breast cancer detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer outcomes improve substantially with earlier detection, yet mammography performance can be limited in dense breasts and may lead to false-positive investigations. Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) and lipidomic/metabolomic signatures have emerged as promising minimally invasive biomarkers that could complement imaging for early-stage detection. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of circulating microRNAs and lipidomic/metabolomic biomarkers for early breast cancer detection and to explore between-study heterogeneity. MATERIALS AND
methodsA PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, Springer, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible diagnostic studies assessing circulating microRNAs and lipidomic/metabolomic biomarkers measured in serum or plasma. No language restrictions were applied. Non-English reports were screened and, when potentially eligible, translated for full-text assessment and data extraction. Studies using whole blood were excluded. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Random-effects models (DerSimonian-Laird) pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary ROC (SROC) area under the curve (AUC). Heterogeneity was evaluated using Q and I2 statistics, and small-study effects were assessed using Deeks' test.
resultsThirty-two studies (2015-2025) comprising 6,935 participants (3,697 breast cancer cases; 3,238 controls) were included. Pooled sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI [0.83, 0.90]) and pooled specificity was 0.84 (95% CI [0.79, 0.88]), with pooled DOR 46.10 (95% CI [27.80, 76.70]), PLR 5.17 (95% CI [3.99, 6.68]), NLR 0.16 (95% CI [0.13, 0.21]), and SROC AUC 0.92 (95% CI [0.87, 0.94]). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 88.29% for sensitivity; I2 = 90.20% for specificity). In subgroup analyses, serum-based studies showed higher pooled specificity than plasma-based studies. A formal threshold effect assessment did not reveal a statistically significant correlation between sensitivity and false-positive rate (Spearman ρ = -0.334, p = 0.062). Deeks' test suggested potential small-study effects (p = 0.043).
conclusionsCirculating microRNA and lipidomic/metabolomic biomarkers demonstrate strong overall diagnostic performance for breast cancer detection; however, substantial heterogeneity and potential small-study effects limit their immediate clinical translation. Given that most included studies used retrospective case-control designs rather than prospective screening cohorts, these biomarkers are best regarded as investigational, complementary tools rather than replacements for mammography at this stage. Future large, prospective, standardized studies with harmonized pre-analytics and prespecified thresholds are needed to support the implementation of screening or triage pathways.
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.