Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20161020›Full record

ArticleBiomarkers in medicine2009

Approaches to biomarkers in human colorectal cancer: looking back, to go forward.

Rod K Nibbe, Mark R Chance

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomarkers in medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Identification of novel mouse genes conferring posthypoxic pauses.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2012
    Article
  5. Cell surface markers in colorectal cancer prognosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2010
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rod K NibbeCase Center for Proteomics & Bioinformatics, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, USA, Tel.: +1 216 368 5868.
Mark R Chance
Case Western Reserve University · US

Funding

TUMOR METABOLISM PROGRAMP30CA043703 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI MARK R CHANCE · 1987 to 2026
$142.3M
CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024989 · NCRR · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI DAVIS, PAMELA B · 2007 to 2011
$53.7M
PREDOCTORAL TRAINING PROGRAM IN MOLECULAR THERAPEUTICST32GM008803 · NIGMS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI MIEYAL, JOHN J, NIEMAN, MARVIN THOMAS · 2001 to 2023
$4.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA043703NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024989NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Like all human cancers, colorectal cancer is a complicated disease. While a mature body of research involving colorectal cancer has implicated the putative sequence of genetic alterations that trigger the disease and sustain its progression, there is a surprising paucity of well-validated, clinically useful diagnostic markers of this disease. For prognosis or guiding therapy, single gene-based markers of colorectal cancer often have limited specificity and sensitivity. Genome-wide analyses (microarrays) have been used to propose candidate patterns of gene expression that are prognostic of outcome or predict the tumor's response to a therapy regimen; however, these patterns frequently do not overlap, and this has raised questions concerning their use as biomarkers. The limitation of gene-expression approaches to marker discovery occurs because the change in mRNA expression across tumors is highly variable and, alone, accounts for a limited variability of the phenotype, such as with cancer. More robust and accurate markers of cancer will result from integrating all the information we have about the cell: genomics, proteomics and interactomics. This article will discuss traditional markers in colorectal cancer, both genomic and proteomic, including their respective approaches and limitations, then conclude with examples of systems biology-based approaches for candidate marker discovery, and discuss how this approach is reshaping our view of a biomarker.

Identifiers

PMID20161020
PMCPMC2749258
OpenAlexW2108180348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.