Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24002599›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2013

The interaction between prognostic and pharmacodynamic biomarkers.

L Bouranis, M Sperrin, A Greystoke, C Dive, A G Renehan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

L BouranisDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Fylde College, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
M Sperrin
A Greystoke
C Dive
A G Renehan

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInteractions between prognostic and pharmacodynamic (PD) biomarkers have received little attention.

methodsPrognostic and PD utilities were assessed with linear mixed-effects models using published data on repeated measurements of circulating caspase-cleaved (ctCK18) and total (tCK18) cytokeratin 18, in 57 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

resultsThe model for tCK18 (but not cCK18) separated the prognostic/PD interaction from the pure prognostic effect, illustrating the principle of dual prognostic and PD characteristics for a given biomarker.

conclusionThese models provide the framework for the analysis and interpretation of longitudinal data to detect prognostic/PD biomarker interactions.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsHumansKeratin-18PrognosisBiomarkers, TumorKeratin-18

Identifiers

PMID24002599
PMCPMC3790178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.