Early Detection of Lung Cancer: A Review of Innovative Milestones and Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer can lead to identification of the cancer at its initial treatable stages and improves survival. Low-dose CT scan (LDCT) is currently the gold standard for lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals. Despite the observed stage migration and consistently demonstrated disease-specific overall survival benefit, LDCT has inherent limitations, including false-positive results, radiation exposure, and low compliance. Recently, new techniques have been investigated for early detection of lung cancer. Several studies have shown that liquid biopsy biomarkers such as circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), microRNA molecules (miRNA), circulating tumor cells (CTCs), tumor-derived exosomes (TDEs), and tumor-educated platelets (TEPs), as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), have the power to distinguish lung cancer patients from healthy subjects, offering potential for minimally invasive and non-invasive means of early cancer detection. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with clinical, imaging, and laboratory data has provided significant advancements and can offer potential solutions to some challenges related to early detection of lung cancer. Adopting AI-based multimodality strategies, such as multi-omics liquid biopsy and/or VOCs' detection, with LDCT augmented by advanced AI, could revolutionize early lung cancer screening by improving accuracy, efficiency, and personalization, especially when combined with patient clinical data. However, challenges remain in validating, standardizing, and integrating these approaches into clinical practice. In this review, we described these innovative milestones and methods, as well as their advantages and limitations in screening and early diagnosis of lung cancer.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".