Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24550697›Full record

ReviewTheScientificWorldJournal2014

Proteomic approaches in biomarker discovery: new perspectives in cancer diagnostics.

Petra Hudler, Nina Kocevar, Radovan Komel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Proteomics techniques in protein biomarker discovery.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Challenges of deciphering gastric cancer heterogeneity.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015
    Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Petra HudlerMedical Centre for Molecular Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Vrazov trg 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-2546-0674
Nina KocevarMedical Centre for Molecular Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Vrazov trg 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Radovan KomelMedical Centre for Molecular Biology, Institute of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Vrazov trg 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite remarkable progress in proteomic methods, including improved detection limits and sensitivity, these methods have not yet been established in routine clinical practice. The main limitations, which prevent their integration into clinics, are high cost of equipment, the need for highly trained personnel, and last, but not least, the establishment of reliable and accurate protein biomarkers or panels of protein biomarkers for detection of neoplasms. Furthermore, the complexity and heterogeneity of most solid tumours present obstacles in the discovery of specific protein signatures, which could be used for early detection of cancers, for prediction of disease outcome, and for determining the response to specific therapies. However, cancer proteome, as the end-point of pathological processes that underlie cancer development and progression, could represent an important source for the discovery of new biomarkers and molecular targets for tailored therapies.

Indexed as

ProteomeBiomarkers, TumorHumansNeoplasmsProteomicsBiomarkers, TumorProteome

Identifiers

PMID24550697
PMCPMC3914447
OpenAlexW2067445716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.