ArticlePeerJ2020
Identifying
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrative Bulk and Single-Nucleus Analyses Nominate COL5A2 as a CAF/ECM-Associated Marker Associated with PDAC Progression.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Integrating transcriptomic data and digital pathology for NRG-based prediction of prognosis and therapy response in gastric cancer.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Type XII collagen is elevated in serum from patients with solid tumors: a non-invasive biomarker of activated fibroblasts.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2024Article
- Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Diagnostics: Machine Learning and Genomic Profiling Reveal Key Biomarkers for Early Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Construction of a prognostic risk model for Stomach adenocarcinoma based on endoplasmic reticulum stress genes.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2024Article
- Identification of fibronectin type III domain containing 3B as a potential prognostic and therapeutic target for pancreatic cancer: a preliminary analysis.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- The role of peroxidasin in solid cancer progression.Biochemical Society transactions · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 5: Diverse roles in cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Expression and function of Siglec-15 in RLPS and its correlation with PD-L1: Bioinformatics Analysis and Clinicopathological Evidence.International journal of medical sciences · 2022Article
- Mechanical Pressure Driving Proteoglycan Expression in Mammographic Density: a Self-perpetuating Cycle?Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia · 2021Review
- Oncogene APOL1 promotes proliferation and inhibits apoptosis via activating NOTCH1 signaling pathway in pancreatic cancer.Cell death & disease · 2021Article
- Article
- Identification of MATN3 as a Novel Prognostic Biomarker for Gastric Cancer through Comprehensive TCGA and GEO Data Mining.Disease markers · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a fatal malignant neoplasm. It is necessary to improve the understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms and identify the key genes and signaling pathways involved in PDAC.
methodsThe microarray datasets GSE28735, GSE62165, and GSE91035 were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified by integrated bioinformatics analysis, including protein-protein interaction (PPI) network, Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment, and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analyses. The PPI network was established using the Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes (STRING) and Cytoscape software. GO functional annotation and KEGG pathway analyses were performed using the Database for Annotation, Visualization, and Integrated Discovery. Hub genes were validated via the Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis tool (GEPIA) and the Human Protein Atlas (HPA) website.
resultsA total of 263 DEGs (167 upregulated and 96 downregulated) were common to the three datasets. We used STRING and Cytoscape software to establish the PPI network and then identified key modules. From the PPI network, 225 nodes and 803 edges were selected. The most significant module, which comprised 11 DEGs, was identified using the Molecular Complex Detection plugin. The top 20 hub genes, which were filtered by the CytoHubba plugin, comprised
conclusionsThe results demonstrated that upregulation of
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.