Precision Oncology: Current Landscape, Emerging Trends, Challenges, and Future Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision oncology is broadly defined as cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment specifically tailored to the patient based on his/her genetics and molecular profile. In simple terms, the goal of precision medicine is to deliver the right cancer treatment to the right patient, at the right dose, at the right time. Precision oncology is the most studied and widely applied subarea of precision medicine. Now, precision oncology has expanded to include modern technology (big data, single-cell spatial multiomics, molecular imaging, liquid biopsy, CRISPR gene editing, stem cells, organoids), a deeper understanding of cancer biology (driver cancer genes, single nucleotide polymorphism, cancer initiation, intratumor heterogeneity, tumor microenvironment ecosystem, pan-cancer), cancer stratification (subtyping of traditionally defined cancer types and pan-cancer re-classification based on shared properties across traditionally defined cancer types), clinical applications (cancer prevention, early detection, diagnosis, targeted therapy, minimal residual disease monitoring, managing drug resistance), lifestyle changes (physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, sunscreen), cost management, public policy, and more. Despite being the most developed area in precision medicine, precision oncology is still in its early stages and faces multiple challenges that need to be overcome for its successful implementation. In this review, we examine the history, development, and future directions of precision oncology by focusing on emerging technology, novel concepts and principles, molecular cancer stratification, and clinical applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".