Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25999657›Full record

ReviewDisease markers2015

Proteomics in cancer biomarkers discovery: challenges and applications.

Reem M Sallam

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Disease markers, 2015. 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Proteomic Profiling and Biomarker Discovery in Colorectal Liver Metastases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. The impact of noise and missing fragmentation cleavages onComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    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

1 author.

Reem M SallamClinical Chemistry Unit, Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh 11461, Saudi Arabia ; Obesity Research Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh 11461, Saudi Arabia ; Department of Medical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11566, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-5814-4811

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the introduction of recent high-throughput technologies to various fields of science and medicine, it is becoming clear that obtaining large amounts of data is no longer a problem in modern research laboratories. However, coherent study designs, optimal conditions for obtaining high-quality data, and compelling interpretation, in accordance with the evidence-based systems biology, are critical factors in ensuring the emergence of good science out of these recent technologies. This review focuses on the proteomics field and its new perspectives on cancer research. Cornerstone publications that have tremendously helped scientists and clinicians to better understand cancer pathogenesis; to discover novel diagnostic and/or prognostic biomarkers; and to suggest novel therapeutic targets will be presented. The author of this review aims at presenting some of the relevant literature data that helped as a step forward in bridging the gap between bench work results and bedside potentials. Undeniably, this review cannot include all the work that is being produced by expert research groups all over the world.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkers, TumorEarly Detection of CancerHumansNeoplasmsProteomicsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID25999657
PMCPMC4427011

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.