ReviewBiomarkers in medicine2010
Restructuring proteomics through verification.
Review in Biomarkers in medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mass spectrometry-assisted gel-based proteomics in cancer biomarker discovery: approaches and application.Theranostics · 2017Review
- The Role of Proteomics in Biomarker Development for Improved Patient Diagnosis and Clinical Decision Making in Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Review
- Measurement of glycosylated alpha-fetoprotein improves diagnostic power over the native form in hepatocellular carcinoma.PloS one · 2014Article
- Proteogenomic convergence for understanding cancer pathways and networks.Clinical proteomics · 2014Review
- Mass spectrometry in cancer biomarker research: a case for immunodepletion of abundant blood-derived proteins from clinical tissue specimens.Biomarkers in medicine · 2014Article
- Statistical design for biospecimen cohort size in proteomics-based biomarker discovery and verification studies.Journal of proteome research · 2013Article
- A targeted proteomics-based pipeline for verification of biomarkers in plasma.Nature biotechnology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Proteomics technologies have revolutionized cell biology and biochemistry by providing powerful new tools to characterize complex proteomes, multiprotein complexes and post-translational modifications. Although proteomics technologies could address important problems in clinical and translational cancer research, attempts to use proteomics approaches to discover cancer biomarkers in biofluids and tissues have been largely unsuccessful and have given rise to considerable skepticism. The National Cancer Institute has taken a leading role in facilitating the translation of proteomics from research to clinical application, through its Clinical Proteomic Technologies for Cancer. This article highlights the building of a more reliable and efficient protein biomarker development pipeline that incorporates three steps: discovery, verification and qualification. In addition, we discuss the merits of multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry, a multiplex targeted proteomics platform, which has emerged as a potentially promising, high-throughput protein biomarker measurements technology for preclinical 'verification'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.