ReviewPathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023
Using proteomics for stratification and risk prediction in patients with solid tumors.
Review in Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrative Sequencing and Proteogenomic Approaches to Intratumoral Heterogeneity in Cholangiocarcinoma: Implications for Precision Diagnosis and Therapy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Electroacupuncture stimulation improves pulmonary fibrosis by modulating ferroptosis in rats: multiscale analysis of transcriptome and proteome.Chinese medicine · 2025Article
- Advancements in mass spectrometry-based proteomics: a new era in pathology research and diagnostics.Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Developing the next-generation cancer research workforce in the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proteomics, the study of proteins and their functions, has greatly evolved due to advances in analytical chemistry and computational biology. Unlike genomics or transcriptomics, proteomics captures the dynamic and diverse nature of proteins, which play crucial roles in cellular processes. This is exemplified in cancer, where genomic and transcriptomic information often falls short in reflecting actual protein expression and interactions. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) is pivotal in proteomic data generation, enabling high-throughput analysis of protein samples. The MS-based workflow involves protein digestion, chromatographic separation, ionization, and fragmentation, leading to peptide identification and quantification. Computational biostatistics, particularly using tools in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; www.R-project.org ), aid in data analysis, revealing protein expression patterns and correlations with clinical variables. Proteomic studies can be explorative, aiming to characterize entire proteomes, or targeted, focusing on specific proteins of interest. The integration of proteomics with genomics addresses database limitations and enhances peptide identification. Case studies in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, glioblastoma multiforme, and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma highlight proteomics' clinical applications, from subtyping cancers to identifying diagnostic markers. Moreover, proteomic data augment molecular tumor boards by providing deeper insights into pathway activities and genomic mutations, supporting personalized treatment decisions. Overall, proteomics contributes significantly to advancing our understanding of cellular biology and improving clinical care.
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.