ArticleBiomarkers in cancer2017
More Accurate Oral Cancer Screening with Fewer Salivary Biomarkers.
Article in Biomarkers in cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Roadmap for the Rational Use of Biomarkers in Oral Disease Screening.Biomolecules · 2024Review
- Emerging Diagnostic Modalities in Oral Cancer Detection and Management.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
- Role of Hematological Markers in Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Signal detection and Bayesian inferential tools were applied to salivary biomarkers to improve screening accuracy and efficiency in detecting oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Potential cancer biomarkers are identified by significant differences in assay concentrations, receiver operating characteristic areas under the curve (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity. However, the end goal is to report to individual patients their risk of having disease given positive or negative test results. Likelihood ratios (LRs) and Bayes factors (BFs) estimate evidential support and compile biomarker information to optimize screening accuracy. In total, 26 of 77 biomarkers were mentioned as having been tested at least twice in 137 studies and published in 16 summary papers through 2014. Studies represented 10 212 OSCC and 25 645 healthy patients. The measure of biomarker and panel information value was number of biomarkers needed to approximate 100% positive predictive value (PPV). As few as 5 biomarkers could achieve nearly 100% PPV for a disease prevalence of 0.2% when biomarkers were ordered from highest to lowest LR. When sequentially interpreting biomarker tests, high specificity was more important than test sensitivity in achieving rapid convergence toward a high PPV. Biomarkers ranked from highest to lowest LR were more informative and easier to interpret than AUC or Youden index. The proposed method should be applied to more recently published biomarker data to test its screening value.
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.