Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42719702›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026

How advances in machine learning drive early detection and risk prediction of early-onset colorectal cancer.

Sudha S Murthy, Anna Schuh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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.

Sudha S MurthyDepartment of Histopathology and Molecular Oncology, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Hyderabad, India.
Anna SchuhDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), defined as colorectal cancer diagnosed before age 50, is rising across high- and middle-income settings whilst organised screening stays anchored to older age thresholds. Blood-based liquid biopsy, combined with machine learning, is the most plausible route to early detection in this group because it does not depend on bowel preparation, endoscopy capacity, or adherence to stool-based testing. The gap is structural: incidence climbs fastest in the population below the age at which any guideline-endorsed modality is offered. The analytical challenge is that early-stage tumour-derived signals in plasma are low in abundance and distributed across heterogeneous molecular layers: circulating tumour DNA mutations, aberrant methylation, cfDNA fragmentomics, and small non-coding RNA. Machine learning converts these into a single calibrated probability. This review examines where artificial intelligence (AI)-driven liquid biopsy genuinely adds diagnostic value in EOCRC, distinguishes components in which learned models are decorative from those in which they are mechanistically necessary, and identifies the validation deficit separating research cohorts from deployable clinical tools. It summarises the first-generation tools used clinically for early detection and post-treatment monitoring, then considers analytes from exosome-bound microRNAs to long-read whole-genome sequencing of circulating plasma DNA, which reads cytosine modification natively, resolves methylation and fragmentation on single molecules, and characterises structural events short reads cannot anchor. Any analyte can feed a learned model, but more diverse input yields better discrimination. The central argument is that approved, guideline-included blood tests were validated in populations aged 45 and above, and their performance in younger patients cannot be assumed.

Indexed as

cfDNA fragmentomicscirculating tumour DNAearly cancer detectionearly-onset colorectal cancerliquid biopsylong-read sequencingmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID42719702
PMCPMC13556045

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.