ArticleEcancermedicalscience2015
Metabolic serum biomarkers for the prediction of cancer: a follow-up of the studies conducted in the Swedish AMORIS study.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Apolipoprotein B/Apolipoprotein A-I Ratio Is a Better Predictor of Cancer Mortality Compared with C-Reactive Protein: Results from Two Multi-Ethnic US Populations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Identification of diagnostic upper gastrointestinal cancer tissue type-specific urinary biomarkers.Biomedical reports · 2019Article
- Thyroid cancer risk in the Swedish AMORIS study: the role of inflammatory biomarkers in serum.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Associations between prediagnostic blood glucose levels, diabetes, and glioma.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Association between prediagnostic glucose, triglycerides, cholesterol and meningioma, and reverse causality.British journal of cancer · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Swedish Apolipoprotein MOrtality RISk study (AMORIS) contains information on more than 500 biomarkers collected from 397,443 men and 414,630 women from the greater Stockholm area during the period 1985-1996. Using a ten-digit personal identification code, this database has been linked to Swedish national registries, which provide data on socioeconomic status, vital status, cancer diagnosis, comorbidity, and emigration. Within AMORIS, 18 studies assessing risk of overall and site-specific cancers have been published, utilising a range of serum markers representing glucose and lipid metabolism, immune system, iron metabolism, liver metabolism, and bone metabolism. This review briefly summarises these findings in relation to more recently published studies and provides an overview of where we are today and the challenges of observational studies when studying cancer risk prediction. Overall, more recent observational studies supported previous findings obtained in AMORIS, although no new results have been reported for serum fructosamine and inorganic phosphate with respect to cancer risk. A drawback of using serum markers in predicting cancer risk is the potential fluctuations following other pathological conditions, resulting in non-specificity and imprecision of associations observed. Utilisation of multiple combination markers may provide more specificity, as well as give us repeated instead of single measurements. Associations with other diseases may also necessitate further analytical strategies addressing effects of serum markers on competing events in addition to cancer. Finally, delineating the role of serum metabolic markers may generate valuable information to complement emerging clinical studies on preventive effects of drugs and supplements targeting metabolic disorders against cancer.
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.