ArticleCancers2023
Platelet-Based Liquid Biopsies through the Lens of Machine Learning.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracellular vesicle and particle biomarkers in cancer: a machine learning blueprint for liquid biopsy.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-powered liquid biopsy in cancer: a paradigm shift in cancer detection and personalized care.Cancer cell international · 2026Review
- Functionalized Carbon Nanotubes: Emerging Nanomaterials for Enhanced Cancer Diagnosis and Imaging.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The role of platelets in cancer: from their influence on tumor progression to their potential use in liquid biopsy.Biomarker research · 2025Review
- Liquid biopsy in cancer diagnosis and prognosis: a paradigm shift in precision oncology.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Review
- Improving platelet-RNA-based diagnostics: a comparative analysis of machine learning models for cancer detection and multiclass classification.Molecular oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Liquid biopsies offer minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of cancer disease. This biosource is often analyzed using sequencing, which generates highly complex data that can be used using machine learning tools. Nevertheless, validating the clinical applications of such methods is challenging. It requires: (a) using data from many patients; (b) verifying potential bias concerning sample collection; and (c) adding interpretability to the model. In this work, we have used RNA sequencing data of tumor-educated platelets (TEPs) and performed a binary classification (cancer vs. no-cancer). First, we compiled a large-scale dataset with more than a thousand donors. Further, we used different convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and boosting methods to evaluate the classifier performance. We have obtained an impressive result of 0.96 area under the curve. We then identified different clusters of splice variants using expert knowledge from the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG). Employing boosting algorithms, we identified the features with the highest predictive power. Finally, we tested the robustness of the models using test data from novel hospitals. Notably, we did not observe any decrease in model performance. Our work proves the great potential of using TEP data for cancer patient classification and opens the avenue for profound cancer diagnostics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.