ArticleDiscover oncology2022
Evaluation of an inflammation-based score for identification of appropriate patients for comprehensive genomic profiling.
Article in Discover oncology, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Sex differences in the impact of controlling nutritional status score on diabetic retinopathy: findings of 2003-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Senataxin and R-loops homeostasis: multifaced implications in carcinogenesis.Cell death discovery · 2023Review
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
Performance status (PS) is widely used as an assessment of general condition in patients before performing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). However, PS scoring is dependent on each physician, and there is no objective and universal indicator to identify appropriate patients for CGP. Overall, 263 patients were scored using the modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) from 0 to 2 based on the combination of serum albumin and c-reactive protein (CRP): 0, albumin ≥ 3.5 g/dl and CRP ≤ 0.5 mg/dl; 1, albumin < 3.5 g/dl or CRP > 0.5 mg/dl; and 2, albumin < 3.5 g/dl and CRP > 0.5 mg/dl. Overall survival was compared between mGPS 0-1 and mGPS 2 groups. The prognosis of patients with PS 0-1 and mGPS 2 was also evaluated. Thirty-nine patients (14.8%) were mGPS 2. Patients with mGPS 2 had significant shorter survival (14.7 months vs 4.6 months, p < 0.01). Twenty-eight patients were PS 0-1 and mGPS 2, and their survival was also short (5.6 months). Evaluation of mGPS is a simple and useful method for identifying patients with adequate prognosis using CGP.
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.