Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42599390›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute2026

Machine learning and AI for cancer research and care: a review of applications, limitations, and future directions.

Kanishk Yadav, Taneesha Gupta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kanishk YadavDivision of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, USA. kanishkyadav07@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-1860-0039
Taneesha GuptaBaptist Memorial Hospital, Tennessee, Memphis, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) is transforming cancer research and care by enabling analysis of complex, high-dimensional datasets spanning genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, imaging, and clinical records. By improving risk stratification, accelerating detection and diagnosis, and supporting treatment selection, ML has the potential to enhance survival outcomes while increasing efficiency across oncology workflows. This review synthesizes key developments in ML for oncology, covering foundational algorithms alongside emerging approaches. We highlight major application areas including early cancer detection, tumor classification, molecular subtyping, biomarker discovery, prognosis estimation, multi-omics integration, computational pathology, pharmacogenomics, and clinical decision support. We also summarize commonly used datasets, discuss the importance of interpretability for clinical trust, and outline barriers to translation such as data heterogeneity, bias, and regulatory constraints. Finally, we describe future directions, including federated learning, graph neural networks, longitudinal modeling, and integration of real-world and wearable data to support precision oncology. This review is intended for cancer researchers, clinicians, and data scientists seeking a practical overview of ML methods, opportunities, and translational considerations in oncology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningMedical OncologyNeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorFederated LearningGenomicsHumansPrecision MedicinePredictive Learning ModelsPrognosisSoft ComputingBiomarkers, TumorArtificial intelligenceCancer researchDeep learningGenomicsMachine learningOncologyPrecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID42599390
PMCPMC13476218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.