ReviewEcancermedicalscience2015
Risk factors and biomarkers of life-threatening cancers.
Review 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Psychometric Properties of the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Questionnaire (PCL-5) for Cancer Patients in Iran.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- VIM-AS1, which is regulated by CpG methylation, cooperates with IGF2BP1 to inhibit tumor aggressiveness via EPHA3 degradation in hepatocellular carcinoma.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2024Article
- Prostate cancer genotyping for risk stratification and precision treatment.Current urology · 2024Review
- Design, synthesis, and biochemical and computational screening of novel oxindole derivatives as inhibitors of Aurora A kinase and SARS-CoV-2 spike/host ACE2 interaction.Medicinal chemistry research : an international journal for rapid communications on design and mechanisms of action of biologically active agents · 2024Article
- Screening a novel six critical gene-based system of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in prostate adenocarcinoma patients with different clinical variables.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is growing evidence that risk factors for cancer occurrence and for cancer death are not necessarily the same. Knowledge of cancer aggressiveness risk factors (CARF) may help in identifying subjects at high risk of developing a potentially deadly cancer (and not just any cancer). The availability of CARFs may have positive consequences for health policies, medical practice, and the search for biomarkers. For instance, cancer chemoprevention and cancer screening of subjects with CARFs would probably be more ethical and cost-effective than recommending chemoprevention and screening to entire segments of the population. Also, the harmful consequences of chemoprevention and of screening would be reduced while effectiveness would be optimised. We present examples of CARF already in use (e.g. mutations of the breast cancer (BRCA) gene), of promising avenues for the discovery of biomarkers thanks to the investigation of CARFs (e.g. breast radiological density and systemic inflammation), and of biomarkers commonly used that are not real CARFs (e.g. certain mammography images, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, nevus number).
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.