ReviewCancers2024
Future AI Will Most Likely Predict Antibody-Drug Conjugate Response in Oncology: A Review and Expert Opinion.
Review in Cancers, 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.
- Article
- Artificial intelligence driven protein design and sustainable nanomedicine for advanced theranostics.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Applications of Pharmacometrics in Antibody-Drug Conjugate Development.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Antibody-drug conjugates in colorectal cancer: advances in targeted delivery and personalized oncology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Leveraging artificial intelligence in antibody-drug conjugate development: from target identification to clinical translation in oncology.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Review
- Decoding breast cancer: insights into molecular pathways & therapeutic approaches.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Antibody-drug conjugates in cancer therapy: current landscape, challenges, and future directions.Molecular cancer · 2025Review
- Review
- Novel treatment approaches utilizing antibody-drug conjugates in breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Review
- Current Trends in Liquid Biopsy Tracking Resistance in Molecular Breast Cancer-Targeted Therapies.Genes · 2025Review
- Integrating natural product research laboratory with artificial intelligence: Advancements and breakthroughs in traditional medicine.BioMedicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The medical research field has been tremendously galvanized to improve the prediction of therapy efficacy by the revolution in artificial intelligence (AI). An earnest desire to find better ways to predict the effectiveness of therapy with the use of AI has propelled the evolution of new models in which it can become more applicable in clinical settings such as breast cancer detection. However, in some instances, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was obliged to back some previously approved inaccurate models for AI-based prognostic models because they eventually produce inaccurate prognoses for specific patients who might be at risk of heart failure. In light of instances in which the medical research community has often evolved some unrealistic expectations regarding the advances in AI and its potential use for medical purposes, implementing standard procedures for AI-based cancer models is critical. Specifically, models would have to meet some general parameters for standardization, transparency of their logistic modules, and avoidance of algorithm biases. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about AI-based prognostic methods and describe how they may be used in the future for predicting antibody-drug conjugate efficacy in cancer patients. We also summarize the findings of recent late-phase clinical trials using these conjugates for cancer therapy.
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.