ArticlePloS one2016
Cancers Screening in an Asymptomatic Population by Using Multiple Tumour Markers.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paired Capillary and Venous Serum Specimen Agreement for Protein Biomarker Measurements and Risk Category Outputs in a Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tool.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Achieving control of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the role of Epstein-Barr virus-based screening and vaccines.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Review
- Primary Care Clinician Preferences and Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Detection Testing Across an Integrated Healthcare System.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Lung Adenocarcinoma Presenting With Elevated Serum Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 Levels: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Perspectives on Clinical Adoption Barriers to Blood-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests across Stakeholders.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence for Advancing Multiple-Cancer Early Detection via Serum Biomarkers: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Current and Emerging Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Predictive Biomarkers in Head and Neck Cancer.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Attitudes and health behaviors of middle-aged and older adults with elevated tumor markers in China.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- CT imaging for occult malignancy in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) in a tertiary centre: is it worthwhile?Irish journal of medical science · 2023Article
- Evaluation of tumour marker utilisation and impact of electronic gatekeeping in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Cancer Diagnostics and Early Detection Using Electrochemical Aptasensors.Micromachines · 2022Review
- Energy Efficiency of Inference Algorithms for Clinical Laboratory Data Sets: Green Artificial Intelligence Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Uncovering nasopharyngeal carcinoma from chronic rhinosinusitis and healthy subjects using routine medical tests via machine learning.PloS one · 2022Article
- Serum CYR61 as a potential biomarker for the diagnosis of esophagogastric junction tumor.Bioscience reports · 2021Article
- Laboratory Demand Management Strategies-An Overview.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Current update on nanoplatforms as therapeutic and diagnostic tools: A review for the materials used as nanotheranostics and imaging modalities.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2021Review
- Development of a Machine Learning Model for Survival Risk Stratification of Patients With Advanced Oral Cancer.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- High Carbohydrate 19-9 Antigen Serum Levels in Patients with Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer and Primary Occult Cancer.Biomedicines · 2020Article
- Improving Multi-Tumor Biomarker Health Check-up Tests with Machine Learning Algorithms.Cancers · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnalytic measurement of serum tumour markers is one of commonly used methods for cancer risk management in certain areas of the world (e.g. Taiwan). Recently, cancer screening based on multiple serum tumour markers has been frequently discussed. However, the risk-benefit outcomes appear to be unfavourable for patients because of the low sensitivity and specificity. In this study, cancer screening models based on multiple serum tumour markers were designed using machine learning methods, namely support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbour (KNN), and logistic regression, to improve the screening performance for multiple cancers in a large asymptomatic population.
methodsAFP, CEA, CA19-9, CYFRA21-1, and SCC were determined for 20 696 eligible individuals. PSA was measured in men and CA15-3 and CA125 in women. A variable selection process was applied to select robust variables from these serum tumour markers to design cancer detection models. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, area under the curve, and Youden index of the models based on single tumour markers, combined test, and machine learning methods were compared. Moreover, relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction (ARR), and absolute risk increase (ARI) were evaluated.
resultsTo design cancer detection models using machine learning methods, CYFRA21-1 and SCC were selected for women, and all tumour markers were selected for men. SVM and KNN models significantly outperformed the single tumour markers and the combined test for men. All 3 studied machine learning methods outperformed single tumour markers and the combined test for women. For either men or women, the ARRs were between 0.003-0.008; the ARIs were between 0.119-0.306.
conclusionMachine learning methods outperformed the combined test in analysing multiple tumour markers for cancer detection. However, cancer screening based solely on the application of multiple tumour markers remains unfavourable because of the inadequate PPV, ARR, and ARI, even when machine learning methods were incorporated into the analysis.
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.