ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
The clinical performance evaluation of novel protein chips for eleven biomarkers detection and the diagnostic model study.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to develop and validate two novel protein chips, which are based on microarray chemiluminescence immunoassay and can simultaneously detected 11 biomarkers, and then to evaluate their clinical diagnostic value by comparing with the traditional methods. Protein chips were evaluated for limit of detection, specificity, common interferences, linearity, precision and accuracy. 11 biomarkers were simultaneously detected by traditional methods and protein chips in 3683 samples, which included 1723 cancer patients, 1798 benign diseases patients and 162 healthy controls. After assay validation, protein chips demonstrated high sensitivity, high specificity, good linearity, low imprecision and were free of common interferences. Compared with the traditional methods, protein chips have good correlation in the detection of all the 13 kinds of biomarkers (r≥0.935, P<0.001). For specific cancer detection, there were no statistically significant differences between the traditional method and novel protein chips, except that male protein chip showed significantly better diagnostic value on NSE detection (P=0.004) but significantly worse value on pro-GRP detection (P=0.012), female chip showed significantly better diagnostic value on pro-GRP detection (P=0.005). Furthermore, both male and female multivariate diagnostic models had significantly better diagnostic value than single detection of PGI, PG II, pro-GRP, NSE and CA125 (P<0.05). In addition, male models had significantly better diagnostic value than single CA199 and free-PSA (P<0.05), while female models observed significantly better diagnostic value than single CA724 and β-HCG (P<0.05). For total disease or cancer detection, the AUC of multivariate logistic regression for the male and female disease detection was 0.981 (95% CI: 0.975-0.987) and 0.836 (95% CI: 0.798-0.874), respectively. While, that for total cancer detection was 0.691 (95% CI: 0.666-0.717) and 0.753 (95% CI: 0.731-0.775), respectively. The new designed protein chips are simple, multiplex and reliable clinical assays and the multi-parameter diagnostic models based on them could significantly improve their clinical performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26884957PMC4723802W2286762034What 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.