ArticleBiosensors2026
Nano-Carbon Biointerfaces in Biosensors for Cancer: A Scoping Review Mapping the Transition from Proof-of-Concept to Translational Applicability (2024-2026).
Article in Biosensors, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nano-carbon biointerfaces offer versatile platforms for cancer biomarker detection, but their progression from analytical proof-of-concept to clinically usable diagnostic evidence remains uneven. This scoping review maps 191 primary studies published from 2024 to 2026, covering nano-carbon families, surface chemistries, transduction architectures, biological matrices, and translational endpoints in cancer biosensing. The evidence space spans four nano-carbon dimensional classes: zero-dimensional carbon dots and quantum dots, one-dimensional carbon nanotubes, two-dimensional graphene-derived materials, and three-dimensional hybrid composites. Across these platforms, analytical sensitivity did not scale monotonically with nano-carbon dimensionality; instead, performance was shaped by the interaction between material architecture, biointerface chemistry, recognition strategy, transduction modality, and matrix context. A Translational Readiness Matrix showed that approximately 67% of studies remained at Low Evidence Level, whereas only approximately 10% reached Strong Evidence Level. Five recurring bottlenecks constrained translation: incomplete reproducibility reporting, limited Real-matrix Validation, scarce comparator-based clinical evidence, insufficient manufacturing-scale data, and weak regulatory or deployment planning. To address these gaps, this review proposes a nine-item minimum reporting checklist and a four-stage validation roadmap to support more reproducible, comparable, and clinically oriented nano-carbon biosensor development.
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.