ArticleScientific reports2021
Biological correlates before esophageal cancer screening and after diagnosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The pharmacological mechanism of β-elemene in the treatment of esophageal cancer revealed by network pharmacology and experimental verification.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Single-cell mapping of N6-methyladenosine in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and exploration of the risk model for immune infiltration.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Expression profile, clinical significance and biological functions of IGF2BP2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Almost 50% of the world's esophageal cancer (EC) cases occur in China, and the impact of cancer screening has long been a controversial topic. The study was designed to evaluate the biological correlates of EC screening and subsequent diagnosis in China. Based on the national cohort of esophageal cancer program, a prospective multicenter study in high-risk regions was conducted from 2017 to 2019. 61 participants received twice esophageal endoscopy screening and pathological biopsy successively (with a mean follow-up of 14.03 months). Box-Cox-power transformation and two-way repeated measures ANOVA were used to evaluate hormone cortisol and immunoglobulin (IgA, IgG, IgM) levels in plasma, reflecting their stress, immune function, and biological correlates before screening and after knowing the diagnosis. The median of cortisol, IgA, IgG, and IgM in pre-screening was 15.46 ug/dL, 1.86 g/L, 12.14 g/L, and 0.91 g/L, corresponding value at post-diagnosis was 15.30 ug/dL, 2.00 g/L, 12.79 g/L, and 0.94 g/L, respectively. No significant differences in biological indicators were found between normal and esophagitis and low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia before screening and after diagnosis. After normality transformation, cortisol, IgA, IgG and IgM levels were (0.25 ± 0.04) U/mL, (0.72 ± 0.13) (g/L), (2.44 ± 0.22) (g/L) and (0.98 ± 0.25) (g/L) before screening, (0.25 ± 0.05) U/mL, (0.70 ± 0.13) (g/L), (2.48 ± 0.21) (g/L) and (1.00 ± 0.25) (g/L) after diagnosis, respectively. Repeated Measures ANOVA showed that the main effects were significant on IgA levels between pre-screening and post-diagnosis (P = 0.019). No interaction effects on biological levels between pre-post screening and esophageal pathology, anxiety states (all P > 0.05). Little biological correlates were found both before screening and after diagnosis. Cortisol and IgA dropped less significantly, while IgM and IgA were increased slightly after diagnosis. Further multi-round longitudinal studies are needed to validate these results.
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.