ArticleScientific reports2024
Large-scale proteomics reveals precise biomarkers for detection of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumour-proximal deep serum proteomics identifies biomarkers associated with ovarian cancer.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- Plasma proteome adaptations during feminizing gender-affirming hormone therapy.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Precision oncology in gynecologic cancers: molecular taxonomy, biomarker-guided therapeutics, and the challenge of therapeutic resistance.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Ovarian Tumor Biomarkers: Correlation Between Tumor Type and Marker Expression, and Their Role in Guiding Therapeutic Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Plant-derived vesicle-like nanoparticles in food crops: emerging insights into nutritional biofortification and biomedical applications.Plant biotechnology journal · 2025Review
- Deep plasma proteomics identifies and validates an eight-protein biomarker panel that separate benign from malignant tumors in ovarian cancer.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Novel diagnostics for improved treatment of gynecological cancer.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ovarian cancer is the 8th most common cancer among women and has a 5-year survival of only 30-50%. While the survival is close to 90% for stage I tumours it is only 20% for stage IV. Current biomarkers are not sensitive nor specific enough, and novel biomarkers are urgently needed. We used the Explore PEA technology for large-scale analysis of 2943 plasma proteins to search for new biomarkers using two independent clinical cohorts. The discovery analysis using the first cohort identified 296 proteins that had significantly different levels in malign tumours as compared to benign and for 269 (91%) of these, the association was replicated in the second cohort. Multivariate modelling, including all proteins independent of their association in the univariate analysis, identified a model for separating benign conditions from malign tumours (stage I-IV) consisting of three proteins; WFDC2, KRT19 and RBFOX3. This model achieved an AUC of 0.92 in the replication cohort and a sensitivity and specificity of 0.93 and 0.77 at a cut-off developed in the discovery cohort. There was no statistical difference of the performance in the replication cohort compared to the discovery cohort. WFDC2 and KRT19 have previously been associated with ovarian cancer but RBFOX3 has not previously been identified as a potential biomarker. Our results demonstrate the ability of using high-throughput precision proteomics for identification of novel plasma protein biomarker for ovarian cancer detection.
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.