MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biomarkers, omics and artificial intelligence for early detection of pancreatic cancer

2025· review· en· W4407764510 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Murray, Lucy Oldfield, Irena Stefanova, Manuel Gentiluomo, Paolo Aretini, Rachel O’Sullivan, William Greenhalf, Salvatore Paiella, Mateus Nóbrega Aoki, Aldo Pastore, James Birch-Ford, Bhavana Hemantha Rao, Pinar Uysal‐Onganer, Caoimhe Walsh, George B. Hanna, Jagriti Narang, Pradakshina Sharma, Daniele Campa, Cosmeri Rizzato, Andrei Turtoï, Elif Sever, Alessio Felici, Ceren Sucularlı, Giulia Peduzzi, Efkan Öz, Osman Uğur Sezerman, Robert Van Der Meer, Nathan E. Thompson, Eithne Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Cancer Biology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerPancreatic ductal adenocarcinomaPancreatic cancerOmicsBiomarker discoveryMedicineDiseasePopulationCancerBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiologyProteomicsEnvironmental healthGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is frequently diagnosed in its late stages when treatment options are limited. Unlike other common cancers, there are no population-wide screening programmes for PDAC. Thus, early disease detection, although urgently needed, remains elusive. Individuals in certain high-risk groups are, however, offered screening or surveillance. Here we explore advances in understanding high-risk groups for PDAC and efforts to implement biomarker-driven detection of PDAC in these groups. We review current approaches to early detection biomarker development and the use of artificial intelligence as applied to electronic health records (EHRs) and social media. Finally, we address the cost-effectiveness of applying biomarker strategies for early detection of PDAC.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Cancer BiologySame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207