Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25024171›Full record

Trial reportProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014

Immunosignature system for diagnosis of cancer.

Phillip Stafford, Zbigniew Cichacz, Neal W Woodbury, Stephen Albert Johnston

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing 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

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. The Gut Mycobiome for Precision Medicine.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. High-Throughput Profiling of Circulating Antibody Signatures for Stroke Diagnosis Using Small Volumes of Whole Blood.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2019
    Article
  17. The significance of microbiome in personalized medicine.Clinical and translational medicine · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Phillip StaffordCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5901 phillip.stafford@asu.edu.
Zbigniew CichaczCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5901.
Neal W WoodburyCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5901.
Stephen Albert JohnstonCenter for Innovations in Medicine, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5901.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the search for disease biomarkers continues, the clinical return has thus far been disappointing. The complexity of the body's response to disease makes it difficult to represent this response with only a few biomarkers, particularly when many are present at low levels. An alternative to the typical reductionist biomarker paradigm is an assay we call an "immunosignature." This approach leverages the response of antibodies to disease-related changes, as well as the inherent signal amplification associated with antigen-stimulated B-cell proliferation. To perform an immunosignature assay, the antibodies in diluted blood are incubated with a microarray of thousands of random sequence peptides. The pattern of binding to these peptides is the immunosignature. Because the peptide sequences are completely random, the assay is effectively disease-agnostic, potentially providing a comprehensive diagnostic on multiple diseases simultaneously. To explore the ability of an immunosignature to detect and identify multiple diseases simultaneously, 20 samples from each of five cancer cohorts collected from multiple sites and 20 noncancer samples (120 total) were used as a training set to develop a reference immunosignature. A blinded evaluation of 120 blinded samples covering the same diseases gave 95% classification accuracy. To investigate the breadth of the approach and test sensitivity to biological diversity further, immunosignatures of >1,500 historical samples comprising 14 different diseases were examined by training with 75% of the samples and testing the remaining 25%. The average accuracy was >98%. These results demonstrate the potential power of the immunosignature approach in the accurate, simultaneous classification of disease.

Indexed as

Antibodies, NeoplasmAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansImmunologic TestsMaleNeoplasmsProtein Array AnalysisAntibodies, NeoplasmAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, Tumorantibody biomarkercancer diagnosticimmunodiagnosticpeptide microarray

Identifiers

PMID25024171
PMCPMC4121770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.