Lab Invest. 2025 Oct 15:104253. doi: 10.1016/j.labinv.2025.104253. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
There are often performance differences between intra-dataset and cross-dataset tests in machine learning (ML) modeling. However, reducing these differences may reduce ML performances. It is thus a challenging dilemma for developing models that excel in intra-dataset testing and are generalizable to cross-dataset testing. Therefore, we aimed to understand and improve performance and generalizability of ML in intra-dataset and cross-dataset testing. We evaluated 4,200 ML models of classifying lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) deaths using the The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, n=286) and Oncogenomic-Singapore (OncoSG, n=167) datasets, and 1,680 models of classifying glioblastoma deaths using TCGA (n=151) and Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC, n=97) datasets. After examining performance distributions of these ML models, we applied a dual analytical framework, including statistical analyses and SHapley Additive exPlanations-based meta-analysis, to quantify factors' importance and trace model success back to design principles. We also developed a framework to identify the best generalizable model. Strikingly, Jarque-Bera test revealed significant deviations of model performances from normality in both cancer types and testing contexts. Simple linear models with sparse feature sets consistently dominated in LUAD experiments, whereas non-linear models dominated in glioblastoma ones, suggesting that the best modeling strategy appears cancer-type/disease dependent. Importantly, both robust Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests consistently identified differentially expressed genes as one of the most influential factors in both cancer types. The proposed multi-criteria framework successfully identified the model that achieved both the best cross-dataset performance and similar intra-dataset performance. In summary, ML performance distributions significantly deviated from normality, which motivates using both robust parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. We quantified and provided possible exploitability on the factors associated with cross-dataset performances and generalizability of ML models in two cancer types. A multi-criteria framework was developed and validated to identify the models that are accurate and consistently robust cross datasets.
Front Immunol. 2025 Oct 2;16:1673098. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1673098. eCollection 2025.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) continues to exhibit resistance to immunotherapy. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Additionally, we employed a multimodal analytical approach to elucidate the immune landscape and conduct transcriptomic profiling in PDAC.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 52 patients diagnosed with advanced PDAC who underwent a combined treatment regimen of immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The study evaluated the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS). To characterize the immune landscape in treatment-naive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) tumors and in the systemic circulation, flow cytometry, multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC), and whole transcriptome sequencing were employed.
RESULTS: The study reported an ORR of 32.7%, a DCR of 67.3%, and a 6-month PFS rate of 38.5%, with a median PFS of 5.5 months. Patients treated with a combination of immunotherapy and gemcitabine achieved the longest PFS. The first-line treatment cohort exhibited a significantly higher DCR (79.3% vs. 52.2%, P = 0.038) and a longer median PFS (6.6 vs. 3.5 months, P = 0.032) compared to the second-line treatment cohort. The efficacy of treatment varied depending on the drug combinations used. Flow cytometry analysis revealed a greater frequency of CD45- CD64+ cells in the peripheral blood of patients with progressive disease (PD) compared to those with a partial response (PR). Multiplex immunofluorescence (MIF) analysis indicated an increased intratumoral infiltration of CD8+ T cells and CD137+ CD8+ T cells in patients with PR. Whole transcriptome sequencing (WTSS) identified key genes involved in immune regulation, signal transduction, and digestive function. Hemopexin (HPX) and regulatory factor X-associated protein (RFXAP) were upregulated in PR patients and showed a positive correlation with survival, whereas Interleukin-6 (IL-6) expression was linked to poor prognosis.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that immunochemotherapy shows potential for the treatment of advanced PDAC. Our study elucidates the immune landscape associated with PDAC and provides critical insights for the identification of prospective therapeutic targets, which could guide the development of innovative combination immunotherapy strategies.
OMICS. 2025 Oct 16. doi: 10.1177/15578100251387518. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) remains the most common subtype of lung cancer, characterized by high heterogeneity and poor survival outcomes. Although transcriptomic and metabolomic alterations have been individually studied, integrated multi-omics analyses are needed to uncover the convergent pathways that drive tumor progression. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified from the GSE229253 transcriptomic dataset comprising LUAD tumor and adjacent normal tissues, while significantly altered metabolites were obtained from the Lung Cancer Metabolome Database. The top 10 DEGs and metabolites were analyzed using the search tool for interacting chemicals (STITCH) to construct gene-metabolite networks, and Integrated Molecular Pathway Level Analysis (IMPaLA) was employed for integrated pathway enrichment to identify overlapping molecular processes. Transcriptomic profiling revealed 973 DEGs (410 upregulated and 563 downregulated), and metabolomic analysis identified significant alterations in metabolites linked to redox balance, amino acid derivatives, and nucleotide metabolism. Integration through STITCH generated a network of 16 nodes and 9 edges, highlighting gene-metabolite associations of probable biological relevance. Joint pathway enrichment analysis using IMPaLA consistently identified glycosylation-related pathways, particularly O-linked glycosylation of mucins, as major axes of convergence between transcriptomic and metabolomic alterations in LUAD (joint p = 0.00129-0.00434). Several genes (B3GNT6, FEZF1-AS1, and LCAL1) and metabolites (isoleucylleucine, leucylleucine, and isoleucylvaline) are probable novel candidates, warranting further investigation. These findings provide systems-level evidence that aberrant glycosylation is likely a central hallmark of LUAD, underscore the potential of glycosylation pathways as biomarkers and therapeutic targets, and demonstrate the utility of cross-omics approaches to unpack the molecular complexity of lung cancer.
A study shows that creativity enhances brain health by improving connectivity in age-vulnerable regions, highlighting the importance of supporting creative activities in public health strategies.
Background: Research typically shows a higher preference for professionally-led face-to-face mental health interventions over digital ones. It remains unclear in which circumstances digital self-help tools are preferred. To address this gap, it is important to examine user characteristics that may help predict when digital interventions are more desirable, ultimately guiding their design to enhance engagement and appeal. Objective: To examine how distress severity and capacity to invest effort relate to intervention preferences, using an ecological assessment of individuals who seek to receive feedback on their mental health. Methods: A comprehensive digital mental health screening tool providing automated feedback was developed and advertised on social media. The sample comprised 684 adult participants aged 18-82 who opted to complete the screening to receive feedback on their mental health state. Participants completed questionnaires measuring general psychological distress, depression, generalized anxiety and demographics. Kessler Psychological Distress Scale–6 was used as the primary measure for distress. Participants were also presented with questions measuring capacity to invest effort and preferences for a professional vs digital self-help tools and for psychotherapy vs a mobile application. The effectiveness of distress, capacity to invest effort, and background characteristics in predicting preferences (a professional vs digital self-help tools; psychotherapy vs a mobile application) was examined using hierarchical linear regressions. The distributions of dichotomized preferences were plotted against distress and capacity to invest effort for transparent visualization. Results: A hierarchical linear regression found that distress, capacity to invest, and currently being in psychotherapy significantly predicted preference for a professional vs digital self-help tools. Distress (β=.25, 95% CI .18 to .32, P<.001 and capacity to invest effort ci .16 .30 p were the strongest predictors with similar effect size. model explained of variance in preference uniquely contributing most distressed participants low preferred digital self-help tools whereas high favored a professional. results obtained when using phq-4 as an alternative distress measure. remained significant .10 .26 predicting for psychotherapy vs mobile application while was not .05 conclusions: this study highlights that interventions is driven by reduced intervention. attempts reduce mental health treatment gap through should focus on optimizing elicited users improve desirability engagement.>
Mark Sendak was getting tired of seeing the toil of so many colleagues go to waste.
At Duke University, he was part of a team of data scientists and engineers who built artificial intelligence tools to help make better health care decisions, and to more effectively treat patients with serious and life-threatening conditions.
But even when one of their inventions appeared to help patients and generated positive results in scientific studies, it never gained uptake beyond Duke’s walls. Patients and doctors in other health systems didn’t get the opportunity to benefit.
In Silico Pharmacol. 2025 Oct 17;13(3):154. doi: 10.1007/s40203-025-00440-3. eCollection 2025.
ABSTRACT
Breast, ovarian, lung, cervical, and colorectal cancers are among the most prevalent malignancies affecting women worldwide. This study aimed to elucidate the common molecular mechanisms of tumorigenesis and identify potential biomarkers using an integrative bioinformatics and network-based approach. Integrative profiling of five microarray datasets identified 66 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) that are common across five cancer types. Gene ontology and KEGG pathway analyses of common DEGs were performed using the DAVID database. The cell cycle processes were the most enriched functions, and oocyte meiosis, oocyte maturation, the p53 signaling pathway, cancer pathways, and cellular senescence were the most important pathways identified. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks for the DEGs were constructed using the STRING database, and the resulting networks were visualized in Cytoscape. Through PPI network analysis, ten hub genes were identified, and subsequent survival analysis confirmed that CHEK1, DLGAP5, CCNB2, and CCNA2 are significantly associated with poor patient survivability, establishing them as common biomarkers across multiple cancer types. Subsequently, ten transcription factors (TFs) and ten post-transcriptional regulators were identified through the assessment of regulatory networks involving TFs-DEGs and miRNAs-DEGs. Finally, drug-gene association analysis from the GSCA library was used to anticipate drug-like compounds using the drug repurposing approach. Overall, this comprehensive investigation holds promise for future in vitro and in vivo studies, offering a molecular foundation for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of malignant cancers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40203-025-00440-3.
OMICS. 2025 Oct 17. doi: 10.1177/15578100251387873. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
Cancer is a disease with heterogenous molecular signatures that ought to be unpacked to achieve the overarching aim of precision oncology. A pan-cancer omics approach provides a systems science framework to explore shared and distinct mechanisms across cancers. We report here pan-cancer analyses of gene expression data from 17 cancers, for example, adrenocortical cancer, lung cancer, kidney cancer, and colorectal cancer, and 26 tissue types, using public datasets to construct disease-specific transcriptional networks. Using the hypergeometric test, 1005 microRNAs (miRNAs), 314 transcription factors (TFs), and 332 receptors were identified as regulatory molecules interacting with differentially expressed genes. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway analysis was performed to explore their functional roles. Accordingly, we found miR-124-3p, miR-6799-5p, and miR-7106-5p as common miRNAs; Specificity Protein 1 (SP1), RELA Proto-Oncogene, NF-κB Subunit (RELA), and Nuclear Factor Kappa B Subunit 1 (NFKB1) as shared TFs; Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 2 (CDK2), Histone Deacetylase 1 (HDAC1), and ABL Proto-Oncogene 1, Non-Receptor Tyrosine Kinase (ABL1) as common receptors; and pathways in cancer, PI3K-Akt signaling, and p53 signaling as commonly enriched. Survival analysis in an independent dataset confirmed these findings: SP1 and NFKB1 were significant in 9 cancers, RELA in 6, whereas CDK2, HDAC1, and ABL1 were significant in 11, 10, and 10 cancers, respectively, out of the 17 cancers researched herein. In conclusion, these findings provide system-level insights on tumor heterogeneity and inform future cancer classification, for example, according to shared and distinct molecular signatures and development of therapies that might prove effective across several cancers. We underline that unpacking molecular signatures across multiple cancers also offers new prospects to move beyond the "One Drug, One Disease" paradigm of pharmaceutical innovation.
Biomedical research techniques that don’t involve the use of animals are gaining momentum, but those using innovative approaches still face resistance from some quarters.
Oral Oncol. 2025 Nov;170:107760. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2025.107760. Epub 2025 Oct 17.
ABSTRACT
Non-viral head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) has poor survival and high recurrence rates. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising biomarker for understanding tumor biology, assessing treatment response, and monitoring disease progression. While extensively studied in virally mediated HNSCC, its role in non-viral HNSCC remains underexplored. This systematic review and meta-analysis consolidates evidence on the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic value of ctDNA in non-viral HNSCC. A systematic search across Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified 1,915 records, of which 47 were included. Data extraction followed PRISMA guidelines, with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS), pooled as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed-effect model. Among 3,574 patients, the most common tumor sites were the oral cavity (35 %) and oropharynx (22 %), with the majority presenting with stage IVA/IVB disease (29 %). Pre-treatment ctDNA detection rates ranged from 50 % to 100 % (median: 83 %), while post-treatment detection rates varied between 28 % and 100 % (median: 48 %). ctDNA detected recurrence in 80 % of patients, with a median lead time of 4.6 months. ctDNA detection was significantly associated with worse OS (HR 10.26, 95 % CI 3.58-29.40; P < 0.0001). Residual ctDNA was strongly correlated with worse PFS (HR 7.32, 95 % CI 4.17-12.86; P < 0.00001) and RFS (HR 7.33, 95 % CI 2.75-19.58; P < 0.0001). ctDNA holds potential for improving diagnostic accuracy, monitoring progression, and predicting survival outcomes in non-viral HNSCC. However, further large-scale studies and standardized guidelines are needed for validation and clinical implementation.
Nat Commun. 2025 Oct 17;16(1):9232. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-64292-3.
ABSTRACT
Recent advancements in spatial transcriptomics technologies have significantly enhanced resolution and throughput, underscoring an urgent need for systematic benchmarking. Here, we generate serial tissue sections from colon adenocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and ovarian cancer samples for systematic evaluation. Using these uniformly processed samples, we generate spatial transcriptomics data across four high-throughput platforms with subcellular resolution: Stereo-seq v1.3, Visium HD FFPE, CosMx 6K, and Xenium 5K. To establish ground truth datasets, we profile proteins on tissue sections adjacent to all platforms using CODEX and perform single-cell RNA sequencing on the same samples. Leveraging manual nuclear segmentation and detailed annotations, we systematically assess each platform's performance across capture sensitivity, specificity, diffusion control, cell segmentation, cell annotation, spatial clustering, and concordance with adjacent CODEX. The uniformly generated and processed multi-omics dataset could advance computational method development and biological discoveries. The dataset is accessible via SPATCH, a user-friendly web server for visualization and download.
Mol Med Rep. 2026 Jan;33(1):6. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2025.13716. Epub 2025 Oct 17.
ABSTRACT
R‑loops, three‑stranded nucleic acid structures composed of an RNA:DNA hybrid and displaced single‑stranded DNA, have emerged as important regulators of gene expression and genome maintenance. Although physiological R‑loops participate in normal cellular processes, their dysregulation can threaten genomic integrity by inducing DNA damage and replication stress. The present review explores the role of R‑loops in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a malignancy characterized by marked genomic instability. In the present review, the formation mechanisms of R‑loops, their dual functions in transcriptional regulation and DNA damage, and their specific implications for HCC pathophysiology were discussed. HCC cells exhibit altered R‑loop homeostasis with aberrant accumulation linked to hepatitis B virus infection, inflammatory signaling and oncogene activation. The present review highlighted how HCC cells exploit or manage R‑loops to promote tumor progression, particularly through the epigenetic silencing of differentiation genes and modulation of replication stress responses. Furthermore, emerging therapeutic strategies targeting R‑loop biology were examined, including small molecules that induce synthetic lethality, gene‑based interventions and combination approaches that exploit R‑loop vulnerabilities. Challenges in targeting R‑loops and future directions, including multi‑omics profiling and biomarker development, were also addressed. Understanding the complex interplay between R‑loops and HCC offers promising avenues for novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for this malignancy.
Google has announced DeepSomatic, an AI tool that can identify cancer-related mutations in tumour genetic sequences more accurately.
Cancer starts when the controls governing cell division malfunction. Finding the specific genetic mutations driving a tumour’s growth is essential for creating effective treatment plans. Doctors now regularly sequence tumour cell genomes from biopsies to inform treatments that can target how a particular cancer grows and spreads.
Published in Nature Biotechnology, this work presents a tool that uses convolutional neural networks to identify genetic variants in tumour cells with greater accuracy than current methods. Google has made both DeepSomatic and the high-quality training dataset created for it openly available.
The challenge of somatic variants
Cancer genetics is complex. While genome sequencing finds genetic cancer variations, distinguishing real variants from sequencing errors is difficult and where an AI tool would provide welcome assistance. Most cancers are driven by ‘somatic’ variants acquired after birth rather than inherited ‘germline’ variants from parents.
Somatic mutations happen when environmental factors like UV light damage DNA, or when random errors occur during DNA replication. When these variants alter normal cell behaviour, they can cause uncontrolled replication, driving cancer development and progression.
Identifying somatic variants is harder than finding inherited ones because they can exist at low frequencies within tumour cells, sometimes at rates lower than the sequencing error rate itself.
How DeepSomatic works
In clinical settings, scientists sequence both tumour cells from a biopsy and normal cells from the patient. DeepSomatic spots the differences, identifying variations in tumour cells that aren’t inherited. These variations reveal what’s fuelling the tumour’s growth.
The model converts raw genetic sequencing data from both tumour and normal samples into images representing various data points, including the sequencing data and its alignment along the chromosome. A convolutional neural network analyses these images to differentiate between the standard reference genome, the individual’s normal inherited variants, and cancer-causing somatic variants while filtering out sequencing errors. The output is a list of cancer-related mutations.
DeepSomatic can also work in ‘tumour-only’ mode when normal cell samples are unavailable, which happens frequently with blood cancers like leukaemia. This makes the tool applicable across many research and clinical scenarios.
Training a more precise AI cancer research tool
Training an accurate AI model requires high-quality data. For its AI tool, Google and its partners at the UC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute and the National Cancer Institute created a benchmark dataset called CASTLE. They sequenced tumour and normal cells from four breast cancer samples and two lung cancer samples.
These samples were analysed using three leading sequencing platforms to create a single, accurate reference dataset by combining the outputs and removing platform-specific errors. The data shows how even the same cancer type can have vastly different mutational signatures, information that can help predict patient response to specific treatments.
DeepSomatic models performed better than other established methods across all three major sequencing platforms. The tool excelled at identifying complex mutations called insertions and deletions, or ‘Indels’. For these variants, DeepSomatic achieved a 90% F1-score on Illumina sequencing data, compared to 80% for the next-best method. The improvement was more dramatic on Pacific Biosciences data, where DeepSomatic scored over 80% while the next-best tool scored less than 50%.
The AI performed well when analysing challenging samples. Testing included a breast cancer sample preserved with formalin-fixed-paraffin-embedded (FFPE), a common method that can introduce DNA damage and complicate analysis. It was also tested on data from whole exome sequencing (WES), a more affordable method that sequences only the 1% of the genome coding for proteins. In both scenarios, DeepSomatic outperformed other tools, suggesting its utility for analysing lower-quality or historical samples.
An AI tool for all cancers
The AI tool has shown it can apply its learning to new cancer types it wasn’t trained on. When used to analyse a glioblastoma sample, an aggressive brain cancer, it successfully pinpointed the few variants known to drive the disease. In a partnership with Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, it analysed eight samples of paediatric leukaemia and found the previously known variants while identifying 10 new ones, despite working with tumour-only samples.
Google hopes research labs and clinicians will adopt this tool to better understand individual tumours. By detecting known cancer variants, it could help guide choices for existing treatments. By identifying new ones, it could lead to new therapies. The goal is to advance precision medicine and deliver more effective treatments to patients.
Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and is co-located with other leading technology events including the Cyber Security Expo, click here for more information.
AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.
The surge of multi-billion-dollar investments in AI has sparked growing debate over whether the industry is heading for a bubble similar to the dot-com boom.
Investors are watching closely for signs that enthusiasm might be fading or that the heavy spending on infrastructure and chips is failing to deliver expected returns. A recent survey by BofA Global Research found that 54% of fund managers believe AI stocks are already in bubble territory, while 38% disagree.
Echoes of the dot-com era
Despite the optimism surrounding AI, sceptics remain unconvinced of its real-world impact. Some even call it a bluff or a bubble waiting to burst.
Speaking during Cisco’s recent Virtual Media Roundtable — AI Readiness Index 2025: Readiness Leads to Value, Ben Dawson, Senior Vice President and President for Asia Pacific, Japan, and Greater China (APJC), compared the current wave of AI hype to the early days of the internet. He said technological shifts of this scale often follow a familiar pattern — early excitement, heavy investment, and eventual market correction before long-term value takes hold.
Dawson noted that while some AI projects or business models may not last, the overall transformation is real and lasting. He added that, much like the internet revolution, AI will permanently reshape business and society, and organisations that ignore it do so at their own risk.
The role of governments and global policy
Public policy is also shaping how the AI cycle unfolds — and how governments might cushion the risks of a potential AI bubble. As Harvard Business Review pointed out, in the US, government involvement has helped define past technology eras — often through incentives and early investments that encourage private innovation. The same pattern is now visible in AI. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have positioned AI as a matter of economic strength and national security, sending a clear message that speed matters.
China has taken a state-led approach, directing capital toward local AI firms to reduce reliance on US technology. In Europe, efforts have focused more on regulation, though fears of overregulation have led to new programs — such as the AI Continent Action Plan and a €1 billion Apply AI fund — to boost adoption and competitiveness.
Meanwhile, venture capital and sovereign wealth funds are investing heavily, even before widespread AI demand exists. These early bets assume that adoption will eventually justify the buildout. But if that demand slows, some investors could be left with stranded assets, much like the unused fibre networks that followed the dot-com bubble.
For businesses, the challenge is different. Instead of financing the next infrastructure wave, they face the question of how to use AI to strengthen their operations. The companies that survived the dot-com downturn — such as Amazon — succeeded by aligning technology with real business value rather than market hype.
Market warnings over a possible AI bubble
The Bank of England recently warned that markets could suffer a sharp correction if confidence in AI falters, calling the potential impact on the UK’s financial system “material.” The warning reflects growing caution among policymakers about how quickly AI-related valuations have climbed.
This concern is shared by some investors and economists who believe the rapid pace of AI spending may outstrip short-term returns. Others, however, argue that building AI infrastructure now is essential groundwork for future innovation.
Building long-term AI infrastructure amid bubble fears
When asked whether companies are worried about AI infrastructure costs and energy demand, Simon Miceli, Managing Director of Cloud and AI Infrastructure for APJC at Cisco, said he views the issue from the opposite angle.
Rather than fearing overcapacity, he said what’s happening now is a large-scale buildout to support the industrialisation of AI. The question, he said, isn’t whether AI demand exists today, but whether the world is preparing fast enough for what’s coming.
Miceli acknowledged that some correction in the AI market is likely, but he believes the long-term need for AI computing power justifies current investment levels. “There’s a race to develop AI and build the capability behind it,” he said, adding that demand will eventually meet supply as applications mature.
Different shades of caution
Across the industry, opinions vary on whether AI’s momentum represents hype or healthy growth.
According to Reuters, at the Milken Institute Asia Summit 2025, Singapore’s GIC Chief Investment Officer Bryan Yeo said valuations in early-stage AI ventures appear inflated, with many startups commanding “huge multiples” despite modest revenues. He suggested that while some firms may justify their valuations, others are unlikely to deliver returns that match investor expectations.
Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder, said that during periods of excitement like this, investors often struggle to separate good ideas from bad ones — though he also noted that innovation-driven bubbles often leave behind real progress once the market settles.
At Goldman Sachs, economist Joseph Briggs argued that the current surge in AI infrastructure spending remains economically sustainable. He said the long-term case for AI investment is strong, but the ultimate winners are still uncertain given how quickly technology changes and how easily companies can switch providers.
Meanwhile, ABB CEO Morten Wierod told Reuters that while he doesn’t see an AI bubble, supply chain and construction limits could slow the rollout of new data centres. IMF Chief Economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas added that even if there’s a downturn, it’s unlikely to cause a systemic financial crisis since AI investments aren’t debt-driven.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also acknowledged market overexcitement, predicting that some investors will lose large sums while others will profit heavily — an outcome that mirrors past technology bubbles.
Despite growing talk of an AI bubble, many investors remain committed to the sector. UBS equity strategists said that about 90% of investors who think the market is overheated are still holding AI-related assets, suggesting most believe the industry has not yet peaked.
A cycle, not a collapse
While concerns about an AI bubble are valid, most experts agree that the technology’s long-term impact is undeniable. As Cisco’s Ben Dawson put it, every major technological transition goes through a cycle of hype, correction, and consolidation — but what remains afterward reshapes industries for decades.
For now, the question isn’t whether AI will endure, but how well businesses and investors can navigate the growing pains that come with every market bubble.
Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is part of TechEx and is co-located with other leading technology events, click here for more information.
AI News is powered by TechForge Media. Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars here.
Login
