ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exome Sequencing Identifies Variants in MLH1 and ERBB2 as Potential Cancer-Predisposing Factors in Familial Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Early mutational events and clonal dynamics in normal crypts: implications for colorectal tumorigenesis.Human genomics · 2025Review
- High-throughput characterization of 5886 HER2 variants identifies 112 new in cellulo gain-of-function mutations.Genomics · 2025Article
- New Gain-of-Function Mutations Prioritize Mechanisms of HER2 Activation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Analysis and prediction of serological indicators associated with colorectal interval polyposis after resection.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Follow-up guidelines for serrated polyps (SPs) are mainly based on factors such as histology and size with limited evidence. The underlying genomic mechanism of SPs in relation to recurrence risks is utterly unknown. Methods: We applied targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) approach on two groups of SPs [polyp-relapsed SPs (PRSPs) vs. polyp-free SPs (PFSPs)] based on the surveillance outcomes to compare differences of DNA variants in 71 colorectal cancer-associated genes. A multicenter validation cohort was established longitudinally from 2016 to 2019 to confirm the relevant results. Results: Among the 96 NGS samples, at least one mutant after filtration was detected in 90 samples (94%). Molecular profiling presented Conclusions: Our results are emphasizing that SP individuals with
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.