ArticleJAMA oncology2020
Evaluating the Use of Circulating MicroRNA Profiles for Lung Cancer Detection in Symptomatic Patients.
Article in JAMA oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 99 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Pancreatic Cancer Detection by Liquid Biopsy in Peripheral Blood: A Prospective Study
Pancreatic Cancer Detection by Liquid Biopsy in Peripheral Blood: A Prospective Study
Who cites it
99 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is There a Role for Machine Learning in Liquid Biopsy for Brain Tumors? A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- High diagnostic value of miRNAs for NSCLC: quantitative analysis for both single and combined miRNAs in lung cancer.Annals of medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Blood-based detection of lung cancer using cysteine-rich angiogenic inducer 61 (CYR61) as a circulating protein biomarker: a pilot study.Molecular oncology · 2021Trial
- Consolidated Evidence and New Frontiers of Liquid Biopsy in Lung Cancer: A Narrative Review.Cells · 2026Review
- Machine learning approaches for cancer prognosis and diagnosis via non-coding RNA: a comprehensive review.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Biomarkers for Lung Nodule Risk Stratification: Are We There Yet?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Extracellular vesicle and particle biomarkers in cancer: a machine learning blueprint for liquid biopsy.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- A visual analysis of the research dynamics of biomarkers for lung cancer screening.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
- Innovative approaches for lung cancer screening and interception.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Tumor cell plasticity in non-small cell lung cancer: the role of microRNA and implications for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment.Translational cancer research · 2026Review
- Next-generation proteomics improves lung cancer risk prediction.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- MicroRNAs in oncology: a translational perspective in the era of AI.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Single-cell mitophagy signature-based artificial intelligence model enhances prediction of prognosis and immunotherapy response in non-small-cell lung cancer.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Diagnostic potential of serum miR-197 and IL-18 levels in predicting bronchopulmonary dysplasia: a prospective cohort study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Circulating microRNAs as Biomarkers of Brain Metastases in Lung Cancer: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Sepsis Biomarkers in Evolution: Comparative Insights and the Promising Roles of MDW and Presepsin.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Lung cancer in never-smoking females: epidemiology, risk factors and screening.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Research on Cancer Prediction Based on Feature Optimization and Multimodal Fusion.Health care science · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a multimodal radiomics-serum biomarker model for diagnosing solid pulmonary nodules via machine learning.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
41 authors at 11 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The overall low survival rate of patients with lung cancer calls for improved detection tools to enable better treatment options and improved patient outcomes. Multivariable molecular signatures, such as blood-borne microRNA (miRNA) signatures, may have high rates of sensitivity and specificity but require additional studies with large cohorts and standardized measurements to confirm the generalizability of miRNA signatures. Objective: To investigate the use of blood-borne miRNAs as potential circulating markers for detecting lung cancer in an extended cohort of symptomatic patients and control participants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, cohort study included patients from case-control and cohort studies (TREND and COSYCONET) with 3102 patients being enrolled by convenience sampling between March 3, 2009, and March 19, 2018. For the cohort study TREND, population sampling was performed. Clinical diagnoses were obtained for 3046 patients (606 patients with non-small cell and small cell lung cancer, 593 patients with nontumor lung diseases, 883 patients with diseases not affecting the lung, and 964 unaffected control participants). No samples were removed because of experimental issues. The collected data were analyzed between April 2018 and November 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity and specificity of liquid biopsy using miRNA signatures for detection of lung cancer. Results: A total of 3102 patients with a mean (SD) age of 61.1 (16.2) years were enrolled. Data on the sex of the participants were available for 2856 participants; 1727 (60.5%) were men. Genome-wide miRNA profiles of blood samples from 3046 individuals were evaluated by machine-learning methods. Three classification scenarios were investigated by splitting the samples equally into training and validation sets. First, a 15-miRNA signature from the training set was used to distinguish patients diagnosed with lung cancer from all other individuals in the validation set with an accuracy of 91.4% (95% CI, 91.0%-91.9%), a sensitivity of 82.8% (95% CI, 81.5%-84.1%), and a specificity of 93.5% (95% CI, 93.2%-93.8%). Second, a 14-miRNA signature from the training set was used to distinguish patients with lung cancer from patients with nontumor lung diseases in the validation set with an accuracy of 92.5% (95% CI, 92.1%-92.9%), sensitivity of 96.4% (95% CI, 95.9%-96.9%), and specificity of 88.6% (95% CI, 88.1%-89.2%). Third, a 14-miRNA signature from the training set was used to distinguish patients with early-stage lung cancer from all individuals without lung cancer in the validation set with an accuracy of 95.9% (95% CI, 95.7%-96.2%), sensitivity of 76.3% (95% CI, 74.5%-78.0%), and specificity of 97.5% (95% CI, 97.2%-97.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of the study suggest that the identified patterns of miRNAs may be used as a component of a minimally invasive lung cancer test, complementing imaging, sputum cytology, and biopsy tests.
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.