Recent Advances in Device Engineering and Computational Analysis for Characterization of Cell-Released Cancer Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During cancer progression, tumors shed different biomarkers into the bloodstream, including circulating tumor cells (CTCs), extracellular vesicles (EVs), circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). The analysis of these biomarkers in the blood, known as 'liquid biopsy' (LB), is a promising approach for early cancer detection and treatment monitoring, and more recently, as a means for cancer therapy. Previous reviews have discussed the role of CTCs and ctDNA in cancer progression; however, ctDNA and EVs are rapidly evolving with technological advancements and computational analysis and are the subject of enormous recent studies in cancer biomarkers. In this review, first, we introduce these cell-released cancer biomarkers and briefly discuss their clinical significance in cancer diagnosis and treatment monitoring. Second, we present conventional and novel approaches for the isolation, profiling, and characterization of these markers. We then investigate the mathematical and in silico models that are developed to investigate the function of ctDNA and EVs in cancer progression. We convey our views on what is needed to pave the way to translate the emerging technologies and models into the clinic and make the case that optimized next-generation techniques and models are needed to precisely evaluate the clinical relevance of these LB markers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".