ArticleCancers2023
Clinical Possibility of
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manual and Fully Automated Chemotaxis-Based Cancer Screening Yield Equivalent Performance: A Nine-Month Real-World, Side-by-Side Study of the N-NOSE Workflow.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Beyond the mouse: 3R-guided alternative animal models transforming cancer research.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Article
- Application of N-NOSE for Evaluating the Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients.Cells · 2025Article
- Detection of Hematological Malignancies Using N-NOSE (Nematode-NOSE).Hematological oncology · 2025Article
- N-NOSE Proves Effective for Early Cancer Detection: Real-World Data from Third-Party Medical Institutions.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Potential urinary volatile organic compounds as screening markers in cancer - a review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe nematode PATIENTS AND
methodsWe investigated the predictability of N-NOSE screening for the clinical effects of preoperative chemotherapy for esophageal cancer patients receiving radical surgery. The index reduction score (IRS) was calculated via the chemotaxis of
resultThirty-nine patients with esophageal cancer were enrolled from August 2020 to December 2021, and 30 patients receiving radical surgery were examined. Complete response or partial response was achieved in 23 cases (76.7%). When the target of the treatment effect was complete response only, the prediction accuracies of the IRS calculated by area under the curve was 0.85 (95% Confidence interval: 0.62-1) in clinically achieving complete response group, and the sensitivity and specificity were 1 and 0.63, respectively.
conclusionIndex reduction score using N-NOSE screening may reflect the efficacy of chemotherapy for esophageal cancer patients. A large-scale prospective study at multiple centers is desired in the future.
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.