From classical approaches to artificial intelligence, old and new tools for PDAC risk stratification and prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is recognized as one of the most lethal malignancies, characterized by late-stage diagnosis and limited therapeutic options. Risk stratification has traditionally been performed using epidemiological studies and genetic analyses, through which key risk factors, including smoking, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, and inherited predispositions, have been identified. However, the multifactorial nature of PDAC has often been insufficiently addressed by these methods, leading to limited precision in individualized risk assessments. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have been proposed as a transformative approach, allowing the integration of diverse datasets-spanning genetic, clinical, lifestyle, and imaging data into dynamic models capable of uncovering novel interactions and risk profiles. In this review, the evolution of PDAC risk stratification is explored, with classical epidemiological frameworks compared to AI-driven methodologies. Genetic insights, including genome-wide association studies and polygenic risk scores, are discussed, alongside AI models such as machine learning, radiomics, and deep learning. Strengths and limitations of these approaches are evaluated, with challenges in clinical translation, such as data scarcity, model interpretability, and external validation, addressed. Finally, future directions are proposed for combining classical and AI-driven methodologies to develop scalable, personalized predictive tools for PDAC, with the goal of improving early detection and patient outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".