ArticleClinical and translational science2024
Lexicon for blood-based early detection and screening: BLOODPAC consensus document.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond early diagnosis: toward AI-enabled multi-omics prediction of necrotizing enterocolitis.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2026Article
- Positive predictive value metrics for multicancer detection tests.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Modelled impact of a multi-cancer early detection screening programme on cancer treatment in England.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Harmonizing definitions in liquid biopsy: A terminology framework by the international society of liquid biopsy.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Review
- Applications of transcranial focused ultrasound for primary brain tumors.Neuro-oncology advances · 2026Review
- Enhanced multicancer screening assay through whole-genome methylation sequencing-based multimodal cell-free DNA analysis.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2026Article
- Modelled impact of a multi-cancer early detection screening programme on the demand for diagnostics in England.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Experience of NHS diagnostic investigation following a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening test: qualitative interviews with NHS-Galleri trial participants who had a cancer signal detected.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Navigating Complexity: Perspectives on Risk Assessment in the Era of New Blood-Based Tests for Early Cancer Detection.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025Article
- Minimum Technical Preanalytical, Patient, and Clinical Context Data Elements for Cerebrospinal Fluid Liquid Biopsy: Recommendations for Public Database Submissions.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Lexicon for blood-based early detection and screening: BLOODPAC consensus document.Clinical and translational science · 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the United States, 2.0 million new cancer cases and around 600,000 cancer deaths are estimated to occur in 2024. Early detection gives cancer patients the best chance for treatment success. Currently, cancer screening in the general population is recommended for a limited set of cancers; as a result, most cancer types are not regularly screened. Thus, in recent years, we have seen a wave of novel, non-invasive, single- and multi-cancer detection tests (SCD and MCD), promising detection of cancer signals prior to the onset of symptoms and/or clinical diagnosis. To accelerate the development, access, and adoption of these tests, the Blood Profiling Atlas in Cancer (BLOODPAC) Consortium, a collaborative infrastructure for developing standards and best practices, established the Early Detection & Screening (ED&S) Working Group. The early detection space is in need of consensus around definitions for SCD and MCD tests that harmonize terminology across diverse stakeholders, thereby reducing communication barriers and ultimately advancing the discipline. To this end, the ED&S Working Group compiled a lexicon of terms, chosen based on perceived importance, frequency of use, lack of clarity, and unique challenges in the context of SCD and MCD tests. This lexicon was submitted to the FDA for their feedback, which was incorporated. In this work, we present the first installment of the lexicon, consisting of 14 primary terms, that will be part of an online dictionary and provide a foundation for future projects of BLOODPAC's ED&S Working Group.
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.