ReviewCancers2026
Biomarkers in Gastric Cancer: Blood Biomarkers, Liquid Biopsy, Artificial Intelligence, and Risk-Stratified Care.
Review in Cancers, 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
backgroundGastric cancer is often diagnosed in advanced stages for patients in countries without organized screening processes. Non-invasive biomarkers have been proposed to risk-stratify and identify those who should undergo endoscopy.
methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar for studies published between January 2006 and May 2026 reporting diagnostic accuracy or health-economic outcomes for gastric cancer detection in asymptomatic adults or patients with precursor mucosal lesions. Twenty-five studies met eligibility criteria and were synthesized narratively, with reporting informed by PRISMA-DTA and Ferrari guidance.
resultsSystemic inflammatory indices derived from routine blood counts are inexpensive but non-specific, with individual areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between 0.65 and 0.83. Serological markers of mucosal atrophy have a clearer biological basis and carry the review's only large Western validation dataset but preferentially detect corpus-predominant disease. Liquid biopsy platforms report the highest accuracy, up to an AUC of 0.968, though sensitivity falls to 62.4% for precancerous lesions and to 44% for stage I disease on some platforms. Magnifying narrow-band imaging reported the highest accuracy among the endoscopic modalities reviewed, with an AUC of 0.97. In low-incidence Western settings, one-time serum pepsinogen screening with endoscopy reserved for positive results is cost-effective at USD 4913 per QALY gained.
conclusionsReported accuracy is encouraging across all four classes of gastric cancer markers but derives mainly from retrospective East Asian case-control cohorts and declines at the earliest stages of disease. The evidence supports using these markers to triage toward endoscopy rather than to diagnose directly. Validation in Western populations remains a gap.
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.