ArticleBMJ open2021
Re-evaluation of potential predictors of calretinin and mesothelin in a population-based cohort study using assays for the routine application in clinical medicine.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A proteomics approach to identify predictive blood biomarkers for pleural mesothelioma in prospective cohorts.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Advances in the Basic Sciences in Thoracic Oncology in the Last 20 Years and Their Translational Impact.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2026Review
- Review
- Serum Calretinin and Genetic Variability as a Prognostic and Predictive Factor in Malignant Mesothelioma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Serum Calretinin as a Biomarker in Malignant Mesothelioma.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCalretinin and mesothelin are molecular markers for the detection of malignant mesothelioma at early stages. Our objective was the re-evaluation of factors influencing calretinin and mesothelin concentrations in plasma of cancer-free men in order to minimise false-positive tests when using commercial assays approved for clinical diagnostics.
settingThis re-evaluation used data and archived blood samples of the population-based Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study (HNRS) collected from 2011 to 2014.
participantsThe present analysis comprised of 569 cancer-free men at the time of blood sampling (median age 70 years) from HNRS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Mesothelin plasma concentration was determined using ELISA and CLEIA (chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay). Calretinin plasma concentration was assessed using ELISA.
resultsCompared with the previous determination of concentrations, we detected less false-positive tests using the commercial assays. In this analysis, we found nine false-positive calretinin tests using the ELISA (specificity 98.4%, 95% CI 97.0% to 99.2%) and 24 false-positive mesothelin tests using both ELISA and CLEIA (specificity 95.8%, 95% CI 93.8% to 97.2%). We confirmed renal dysfunction as major predictor of elevated marker concentrations. Mesothelin was additionally affected by bronchitis. Furthermore, elevated inflammation values and hypertension only affected the mesothelin concentration determined by ELISA.
conclusionsThe newly available assays of calretinin and mesothelin approved for clinical diagnostics showed high specificities in the population-based cohort of elderly men without a malignant disease. The current evaluation provides a basis to consider influencing factors in order to further improve the diagnostic procedure.
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.