Liquid Biopsy Index
Track A · Research Output

The Liquid Biopsy Research Landscape

Every PubMed-indexed liquid-biopsy paper, 2008–2026 — by application, analyte, geography, and impact.

Growth

How Much, And How Fast

A Field Growing Roughly Twenty-Fivefold

In-scope publications per year. The current year (2026) is omitted as incomplete.

Data table
Composition as
— applies to the application, analyte, and cancer-breadth charts
Decomposition

What The Field Studies

Clinical Application

Oncology purpose, in care-pathway order: screening, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy selection, treatment-response monitoring, and residual disease. A paper can serve more than one.

Data table

Analyte Platform

Cell-free DNA remains the backbone; circulating RNA, extracellular vesicles, and protein/metabolite platforms have diversified the toolkit.

Data table
Momentum

What Is Surging

The Frontier Is Protein, Metabolite, Vesicle — And Residual Disease

Annualized growth, 2016–2025, by area. The newer analyte platforms and minimal-residual-disease testing are growing fastest; the original workhorses (CTCs) and prenatal testing have matured.

What Is Used For What

Oncology applications only. The share of each application’s papers that draw on each analyte platform — e.g. what fraction of residual-disease studies use cell-free DNA. Cell-free DNA dominates monitoring and residual-disease work; screening and prognosis lean more on circulating cells and RNA.

Darker = a larger share of that application’s papers use that analyte.
Scope & breadth

How Wide The Net Is Cast

Cancer Breadth

Of oncology studies: one named cancer, two or more named cancers studied together, or a pan-cancer / tissue-agnostic approach.

Non-Oncology Domains

Liquid biopsy beyond cancer. One panel per domain, ordered by current volume; all panels share a single vertical scale, so heights compare directly.

Geography

Where The Research Is Led

China Has Overtaken The United States

By corresponding/first-author country, as each country’s share of that year’s output. The data table below is always absolute counts.

Data table
Output vs. influence

Volume Versus Quality

China Leads On Output; The UK, Netherlands, And Australia On Impact

Each country placed by estimated paper volume (horizontal) and the median field-weighted citation impact of those papers (vertical) — a fair, age-adjusted quality measure. Above the dashed line is above the world average. Bubble size reflects output.

Impact

Influence Versus Volume

Which Areas Punch Above Their Weight

Median field-weighted citation impact (fwci, normalized for field and age). 1.0 = world average for the field; above the line is above-average influence. Small-volume tags rest on fewer papers.

Applications
Analyte platforms
Who

Academia, Industry, And Institutions

Company Involvement

Share of papers with any company-affiliated author, and those company-led. Papers under-represent industry — firms express themselves through patents and products (Tracks B–E).

Tool-Building Intensity

Share of the literature whose primary contribution is the assay/method itself. Consistently 38–45% — the field keeps building tools. A lower bound.

Leading Institutions

By in-scope papers, counted by any author affiliation — an institution is credited once per paper it appears on, however many of its campuses or departments are listed. Multi-centre papers therefore credit every centre.

How To Read This

  • Each paper is counted once, in its earliest year.
  • The current year (2026) is omitted — it is only partway complete, so plotting it would read as a false decline.
  • Geography, impact, and industry are joined from OpenAlex (matched for ~99.8% of records). Country = corresponding/first author. Impact uses fwci (field/age-normalized).
  • Methods share is a lower bound; its stability over time is the reliable signal, not the exact level.