SynthesisTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Value of Machine Learning Models for Cell-Free DNA-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionMachine learning (ML)-based analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has emerged as a promising strategy for multi-cancer early detection (MCED). However, reported diagnostic performance varies widely across studies, and many estimates are derived from training or enriched cohorts, limiting their relevance to independent validation and real-world settings.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of ML-based cfDNA assays for MCED. Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to February 2, 2025. Only independent validation or testing datasets were included; all training datasets were excluded. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.ResultsThirteen studies comprising 23 independent datasets and 14,892 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66-0.87), and the pooled specificity was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-0.98). The summary area under the curve (AUC) was 0.94, with a DOR of 76.6. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed (
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.