ArticlePloS one2013
Comparison of prognostic genomic predictors in colorectal cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing chemotherapy response prediction via matched colorectal tumor-organoid gene expression analysis and network-based biomarker selection.Translational oncology · 2025Article
- Discovery and validation of a 10-gene predictive signature for response to adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III colon cancer.Cell reports. Medicine · 2024Article
- Prognostic and Predictive Molecular Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer: Updates and Challenges.Cancers · 2020Review
- Cancer stem cell associated eight gene-based signature predicts clinical outcomes of colorectal cancer.Oncology letters · 2019Article
- Genome-wide Discovery and Identification of a Novel miRNA Signature for Recurrence Prediction in Stage II and III Colorectal Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2018Article
- Colon cancer subtypes: concordance, effect on survival and selection of the most representative preclinical models.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Psychiatric blood biomarkers: avoiding jumping to premature negative or positive conclusions.Molecular psychiatry · 2015Article
- Genomic classifier ColoPrint predicts recurrence in stage II colorectal cancer patients more accurately than clinical factors.The oncologist · 2015Article
- Significant association of oncogene YAP1 with poor prognosis and cetuximab resistance in colorectal cancer patients.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2015Article
- A nineteen gene-based risk score classifier predicts prognosis of colorectal cancer patients.Molecular oncology · 2014Article
- Proteomic approaches in biomarker discovery: new perspectives in cancer diagnostics.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2014Review
- Co-development of diagnostic vectors to support targeted therapies and theranostics: essential tools in personalized cancer therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough several prognostic genomic predictors have been identified from independent studies, it remains unclear whether these predictors are actually concordant with respect to their predictions for individual patients and which predictor performs best. We compared five prognostic genomic predictors, the V7RHS, the ColoGuideEx, the Meta163, the OncoDX, and the MDA114, in terms of predicting disease-free survival in two independent cohorts of patients with colorectal cancer. STUDY
designUsing original classification algorithms, we tested the predictions of five genomic predictors for disease-free survival in two cohorts of patients with colorectal cancer (n = 229 and n = 168) and evaluated concordance of predictors in predicting outcomes for individual patients.
resultsWe found that only two predictors, OncoDX and MDA114, demonstrated robust performance in identifying patients with poor prognosis in 2 independent cohorts. These two predictors also had modest but significant concordance of predicted outcome (r>0.3, P<0.001 in both cohorts).
conclusionsFurther validation of developed genomic predictors is necessary. Despite the limited number of genes shared by OncoDX and MDA114, individual-patient outcomes predicted by these two predictors were significantly concordant.
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.