Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42523586›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in systems biology2026

Beyond static biomarkers: systems biology and AI for decoding cancer dynamics.

Subhajit Dutta, Anjana Goli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in systems biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Subhajit DuttaDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Cell Biology (IBMZ), Center for Experimental Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Anjana GoliDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision oncology has been built largely on static biomarkers, including mutational profiles, receptor status, histopathologic classes, and single-time-point molecular signatures. These readouts have transformed diagnosis and treatment selection, but they remain mismatched to a disease whose most consequential behaviors-progression, metastasis, treatment adaptation, dormancy, and relapse-are dynamic, noisy, and multiscale. In this article, we argue that cancer is better understood as a stochastic, coupled biological system than as a fixed molecular identity. We bring together adjacent literatures spanning cancer cell states, spatial and ecological organization, metabolism and dormancy, mechanobiology, longitudinal biomarkers, quantitative oncology, and AI-enabled representation learning, and develop a mathematically grounded framework for reasoning about cancer dynamics. Our central claim is modest but consequential: future biomarkers should not only classify current disease state, but also estimate transition risk, system instability, and trajectory direction. To support that claim, we distinguish latent biological state from clinical observation, clarify why partial observability makes dynamic inference difficult, and introduce a mathematically explicit but deliberately constrained formal scaffold based on stochastic state-space models, local linearization, and layer-specific dynamical motifs. We then develop six internal biological layers of cancer dynamics-molecular regulatory dynamics, cellular state plasticity, spatial niche organization, tumor ecosystem co-evolution, metabolic-epigenetic coupling with dormancy, and mechanobiological feedback-and treat longitudinal clinical monitoring as a linked observation layer rather than a mechanistic subsystem. Particular attention is given to noise; transcriptional noise, ecological variability, treatment-induced perturbation, and measurement noise all shape how cancer states are occupied, destabilized, and detected. Finally, we review dynamic biomarker evidence from ctDNA-guided adjuvant therapy, circulating tumor cells, serial imaging, and adaptive therapy, discuss how AI can support inference under partial observability without replacing mechanism, examine regulatory and health-equity constraints, and outline the research agenda needed to turn dynamic oncology from a compelling idea into a reproducible clinical discipline.

Indexed as

adaptive therapyartificial intelligencecancer dynamicscell statesdynamic biomarkersliquid biopsymachine learningmathematical oncology

Identifiers

PMID42523586
PMCPMC13407177

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.