4.6 Review

Machine Learning Protocols in Early Cancer Detection Based on Liquid Biopsy: A Survey

Journal

LIFE-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life11070638

Keywords

machine learning; early cancer detection; liquid biopsy

Funding

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [CityU 11200218]
  2. Health and Medical Research Fund
  3. Health and Medical Research Fund, the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [07181426]
  4. Hong Kong Institute for Data Science (HKIDS) at City University of Hong Kong
  5. City University of Hong Kong [CityU 11202219, CityU 11203520]
  6. National Natural Science Foundation of China [32000464]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the advancements in liquid biopsy technology, increasing attention has been paid to the potential biomarkers in body fluids and their relationship with tumor origin. Traditional correlation analysis methods are no longer applicable, and machine learning has become an important tool in exploring the essence of tumor origin.
With the advances of liquid biopsy technology, there is increasing evidence that body fluid such as blood, urine, and saliva could harbor the potential biomarkers associated with tumor origin. Traditional correlation analysis methods are no longer sufficient to capture the high-resolution complex relationships between biomarkers and cancer subtype heterogeneity. To address the challenge, researchers proposed machine learning techniques with liquid biopsy data to explore the essence of tumor origin together. In this survey, we review the machine learning protocols and provide corresponding code demos for the approaches mentioned. We discuss algorithmic principles and frameworks extensively developed to reveal cancer mechanisms and consider the future prospects in biomarker exploration and cancer diagnostics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available