ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2011
SELDI-TOF derived serum biomarkers failed to differentiate between patients with beryllium sensitisation and patients with chronic beryllium disease.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople exposed to beryllium may develop beryllium sensitisation (BeS) and, in some cases, progress to chronic beryllium disease (CBD).
objectivesThe objective of this study was to test the ability of proteomic technology to identify patterns of serum protein biomarkers that allow differentiation between BeS and CBD and thus remove the need for invasive bronchoscopic procedures.
methodsInitially, SELDI-TOF methodology and analysis was performed on serum samples from 30 CBD and 31 BeS patients.
resultsThis 'starter set' yielded two distinct biomarker pattern sets with eight candidate proteins. The first set differentiated between BeS and CBD with 83.3% sensitivity and 82.3% specificity, with 10-fold cross-validation of 75% and 79%, respectively. The second set of biomarkers yielded higher sensitivity (90.0%) and higher specificity (90.3%), with 10-fold cross-validation of 71.7% and 82.3%, respectively. Due to its greater sensitivity and specificity, the second set of biomarkers was used as the framework for differentiating between CBD and BeS in a second set of serum samples from 450 patients with BeS and CBD. When this larger set of samples was subjected to the biomarker framework in a blinded fashion, it yielded a sensitivity of 43.53% and a specificity of 38.93%.
conclusionsDue to these low sensitivity and specificity values, we have concluded that, currently, the unique set of SELDI-TOF derived biomarkers does not possess the qualities that would allow it to differentiate between a CBD patient and a BeS patient using serum protein biomarkers. Future refinements in sample collection or proteomic technology may be needed to improve biomarker discovery.
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.