ArticleProteome science2011
Improving Detection Accuracy of Lung Cancer Serum Proteomic Profiling via Two-Stage Training Process.
Article in Proteome science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurface-Enhanced Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (SELDI-TOF-MS) is a frequently used technique for cancer biomarker research. The specificity of biomarkers detected by SELDI can be influenced by concomitant inflammation. This study aimed to increase detection accuracy using a two-stage analysis process.
methodsSera from 118 lung cancer patients, 72 healthy individuals, and 31 patients with inflammatory disease were randomly divided into training and testing groups by 3:2 ratio. In the training group, the traditional method of using SELDI profile analysis to directly distinguish lung cancer patients from sera was used. The two-stage analysis of distinguishing the healthy people and non-healthy patients (1st-stage) and then differentiating cancer patients from inflammatory disease patients (2nd-stage) to minimize the influence of inflammation was validated in the test group.
resultsIn the test group, the one-stage method had 87.2% sensitivity, 37.5% specificity, and 64.4% accuracy. The two-stage method had lower sensitivity (> 70.1%) but statistically higher specificity (80%) and accuracy (74.7%). The predominantly expressed protein peak at 11480 Da was the primary splitter regardless of one- or two-stage analysis. This peak was suspected to be SAA (Serum Amyloid A) due to the similar m/z countered around this area. This hypothesis was further tested using an SAA ELISA assay.
conclusionsInflammatory disease can severely interfere with the detection accuracy of SELDI profiles for lung cancer. Using a two-stage training process will improve the specificity and accuracy of detecting lung cancer.
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.