ArticleCancer innovation2023
Bioinformatics analysis of human kallikrein 5 (
Article in Cancer innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construction of a novel prediction model based on albumin-hemoglobin score and serum microRNA-497-5p for prognosis of patients with stage II-III colorectal cancer.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Integrative systematic review and transcriptomic -machine learning analysis of molecular signatures in metaplastic breast cancer.Ecancermedicalscience · 2026Article
- ADAMTS-8 and kallikrein-related peptidases 10 and 5 proteases also have a tumor suppression role.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- CLCN5 inhibits tumorigenesis and fatty acid accumulation in clear cell renal cell carcinoma by regulating Enoyl CoA hydratase and 3-Hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Prognostic Value and Immunological Role of POP7 in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Bioinformatics analysis of human kallikrein 5 (Cancer innovation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Metaplastic breast carcinoma (MBC) is a rare breast cancer subtype; most cases are triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) and are poorly responsive to conventional systemic therapy. Few potential diagnostic and prognostic markers for distinguishing between metaplastic TNBC and nonmetaplastic TNBC have been discovered. We performed bioinformatic analysis to explore the underlying mechanism by which metaplastic TNBC differs from nonmetaplastic TNBC and provides potential pathogenic genes of metaplastic TNBC. Methods: Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in metaplastic tumors and nonmetaplastic tumors from TNBC patients were screened using GSE165407. The GSE76275 data set and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database were used to screen DEGs in TNBC and non-TNBC. Metascape and DAVID were used for the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) enrichment analysis and Gene Ontology (GO) analysis of DEGs. Online databases, including UALCAN, GEPIA, HPA, Breast Cancer Gene-Expression Miner, and quantitative PCR and western blot, were used to examine Results: Conclusion: Our research indicated that
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.