Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32986110›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Development and Validation of a Serum Metabolomic Signature for Endometrial Cancer Screening in Postmenopausal Women.

Jacopo Troisi, Antonio Raffone, Antonio Travaglino, Gaetano Belli, Carmen Belli, Santosh Anand, Luigi Giugliano, Pierpaolo Cavallo, Giovanni Scala, Steven Symes and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Jacopo TroisiDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, Scuola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Salerno, Italy.
Antonio RaffoneDepartment of Neurosciences and Reproductive and Dentistry Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Antonio TravaglinoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Gaetano BelliLega Italiana per la Lotta contro i Tumori, Avellino Section, Avellino, Italy.
Carmen BelliLega Italiana per la Lotta contro i Tumori, Avellino Section, Avellino, Italy.
Santosh AnandUniversità degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy.
Luigi GiuglianoDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, Scuola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Salerno, Italy.
Pierpaolo CavalloDepartment of Physics, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Salerno, Italy.
Giovanni ScalaHosmotic, Vico Equense, Naples, Italy.
Steven SymesDepartment of Chemistry and Physics, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
Sean RichardsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, University of Tennessee College of Medicine at Chattanooga.
David AdairDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, University of Tennessee College of Medicine at Chattanooga.
Alessio FasanoEuropean Biomedical Research Institute of Salerno, Salerno, Italy.
Vincenzo BottiglieroDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, Scuola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Salerno, Italy.
Maurizio GuidaTheoreo, Montecorvino Pugliano, Salerno, Italy.
University of Naples Federico II · ITUniversity of Tennessee at Chattanooga · USEuropean Biomedical Research Institute of Salerno · ITLega Italiana per la Lotta ai Tumori · ITUniversity of Salerno · ITInstitute for Complex Systems · ITUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is the most commonly diagnosed gynecologic cancer. Its early detection is advisable because 20% of women have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis. Objective: To clinically validate a metabolomics-based classification algorithm as a screening test for EC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study enrolled 2 cohorts. A multicenter prospective cohort, with 50 cases (postmenopausal women with EC; International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-III and grade G1-G3) and 70 controls (no EC but matched on age, years from menopause, tobacco use, and comorbidities), was used to train multiple classification models. The accuracy of each trained model was then used as a statistical weight to produce an ensemble machine learning algorithm for testing, which was validated with a subsequent prospective cohort of 1430 postmenopausal women. The study was conducted at the San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d'Aragona University Hospital of Salerno (Italy) and Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro i Tumori clinic in Avellino (Italy). Data collection was conducted from January 2018 to February 2019, and analysis was conducted from January to March 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The presence or absence of EC based on evaluation of the blood metabolome. Metabolites were extracted from dried blood samples from all participants and analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. A confusion matrix was used to summarize test results. Performance indices included sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and accuracy. Confirmation or exclusion of EC in women with a positive test result was by means of hysteroscopy. Participants with negative results were followed up 1 year after enrollment to investigate the appearance of EC signs. Results: The study population consisted of 1550 postmenopausal women. The mean (SD) age was 68.2 (11.7) years for participants with no EC in the training cohort, 69.4 (13.8) years for women with EC in the training cohort, and 59.7 (7.7) years for women in the validation cohort. Application of the ensemble machine learning to the validation cohort resulted in 16 true-positives, 2 false-positives, and 0 false-negatives, and it correctly classified more than 99% of samples. Disease prevalence was 1.12% (16 of 1430). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, dried blood metabolomic profile was used to assess the presence or absence of EC in postmenopausal women not receiving hormonal therapy with greater than 99% accuracy.

Indexed as

AgedEarly Detection of CancerEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHematologic TestsHumansMachine LearningMetabolomeMetabolomicsMiddle AgedPostmenopausePredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID32986110
PMCPMC7522698
OpenAlexW3089312737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.