Serratia marcescens colonies on BTB agar medium. PHOTO: UNSPLASH
A closer look at how machine intelligence is helping doctors see cancer in an entirely new light.
Updated
November 28, 2025 4:18 PM
Serratia marcescens colonies on BTB agar medium. PHOTO: UNSPLASH
Artificial intelligence is beginning to change how scientists understand cancer at the cellular level. In a new collaboration, Bio-Techne Corporation, a global life sciences tools provider, and Nucleai, an AI company specializing in spatial biology for precision medicine, have unveiled data from the SECOMBIT clinical trial that could reshape how doctors predict cancer treatment outcomes. The results, presented at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) 2025 Annual Meeting, highlight how AI-powered analysis of tumor environments can reveal which patients are more likely to benefit from specific therapies.
Led in collaboration with Professor Paolo Ascierto of the University of Napoli Federico II and Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, the study explores how spatial biology — the science of mapping where and how cells interact within tissue — can uncover subtle immune behaviors linked to survival in melanoma patients.
Using Bio-Techne’s COMET platform and a 28-plex multiplex immunofluorescence panel, researchers analyzed 42 pre-treatment biopsies from patients with metastatic melanoma, an advanced stage of skin cancer. Nucleai’s multimodal AI platform integrated these imaging results with pathology and clinical data to trace patterns of immune cell interactions inside tumors.
The findings revealed that therapy sequencing significantly influences immune activity and patient outcomes. Patients who received targeted therapy followed by immunotherapy showed stronger immune activation, marked by higher levels of PD-L1+ CD8 T-cells and ICOS+ CD4 T-cells. Those who began with immunotherapy benefited most when PD-1+ CD8 T-cells engaged closely with PD-L1+ CD4 T-cells along the tumor’s invasive edge. Meanwhile, in patients alternating between targeted and immune treatments, beneficial antigen-presenting cell (APC) and T-cell interactions appeared near tumor margins, whereas macrophage activity in the outer tumor environment pointed to poorer prognosis.
“This study exemplifies how our innovative spatial imaging and analysis workflow can be applied broadly to clinical research to ultimately transform clinical decision-making in immuno-oncology”, said Matt McManus, President of the Diagnostics and Spatial Biology Segment at Bio-Techne.
The collaboration between the two companies underscores how AI and high-plex imaging together can help decode complex biological systems. As Avi Veidman, CEO of Nucleai, explained, “Our multimodal spatial operating system enables integration of high-plex imaging, data and clinical information to identify predictive biomarkers in clinical settings. This collaboration shows how precision medicine products can become more accurate, explainable and differentiated when powered by high-plex spatial proteomics – not limited by low-plex or H&E data alone”.
Dr. Ascierto described the SECOMBIT trial as “a milestone in demonstrating the possible predictive power of spatial biomarkers in patients enrolled in a clinical study”.
The study’s broader message is clear: understanding where immune cells are and how they interact inside a tumor could become just as important as knowing what they are. As AI continues to map these microscopic landscapes, oncology may move closer to genuinely personalized treatment — one patient, and one immune network, at a time.
Keep Reading
HKU professor apologizes after PhD student’s AI-assisted paper cites fabricated sources.
Updated
November 28, 2025 4:18 PM
.jpg)
The University of Hong Kong in Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong Island. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
It’s no surprise that artificial intelligence, while remarkably capable, can also go astray—spinning convincing but entirely fabricated narratives. From politics to academia, AI’s “hallucinations” have repeatedly shown how powerful technology can go off-script when left unchecked.
Take Grok-2, for instance. In July 2024, the chatbot misled users about ballot deadlines in several U.S. states, just days after President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid against former President Donald Trump. A year earlier, a U.S. lawyer found himself in court for relying on ChatGPT to draft a legal brief—only to discover that the AI tool had invented entire cases, citations and judicial opinions. And now, the academic world has its own cautionary tale.
Recently, a journal paper from the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong was found to contain fabricated citations—sources apparently created by AI. The paper, titled “Forty Years of Fertility Transition in Hong Kong,” analyzed the decline in Hong Kong’s fertility rate over the past four decades. Authored by doctoral student Yiming Bai, along with Yip Siu-fai, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and other university officials, the study identified falling marriage rates as a key driver behind the city’s shrinking birth rate. The authors recommended structural reforms to make Hong Kong’s social and work environment more family-friendly.
But the credibility of the paper came into question when inconsistencies surfaced among its references. Out of 61 cited works, some included DOI (Digital Object Identifier) links that led to dead ends, displaying “DOI Not Found.” Others claimed to originate from academic journals, yet searches yielded no such publications.
Speaking to HK01, Yip acknowledged that his student had used AI tools to organize the citations but failed to verify the accuracy of the generated references. “As the corresponding author, I bear responsibility”, Yip said, apologizing for the damage caused to the University of Hong Kong and the journal’s reputation. He clarified that the paper itself had undergone two rounds of verification and that its content was not fabricated—only the citations had been mishandled.
Yip has since contacted the journal’s editor, who accepted his explanation and agreed to re-upload a corrected version in the coming days. A formal notice addressing the issue will also be released. Yip said he would personally review each citation “piece by piece” to ensure no errors remain.
As for the student involved, Yip described her as a diligent and high-performing researcher who made an honest mistake in her first attempt at using AI for academic assistance. Rather than penalize her, Yip chose a more constructive approach, urging her to take a course on how to use AI tools responsibly in academic research.
Ultimately, in an age where generative AI can produce everything from essays to legal arguments, there are two lessons to take away from this episode. First, AI is a powerful assistant, but only that. The final judgment must always rest with us. No matter how seamless the output seems, cross-checking and verifying information remain essential. Second, as AI becomes integral to academic and professional life, institutions must equip students and employees with the skills to use it responsibly. Training and mentorship are no longer optional; they’re the foundation for using AI to enhance, not undermine, human work.
Because in this age of intelligent machines, staying relevant isn’t about replacing human judgment with AI, it’s about learning how to work alongside it.