ArticleCancer science2024
Multiplex plasma protein assays as a diagnostic tool for lung cancer.
Article in Cancer science, 2024. 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.
- Enabling Variant Proteogenomic Assay Development Through a Peptide Target Selection Pipeline and Web Application.Proteomics · 2026Article
- The progress of biomarkers detection to lung cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- A Multi-omics Framework Combining Genomics and Proteomics for Silicosis Prediction in Chinese Workers - Jiangsu Province, China, 2023-2024.China CDC weekly · 2025Article
- Recent advances in liquid biopsy for precision oncology: emerging biomarkers and clinical applications in lung cancer.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Mendelian randomization study on the causal relationships among fasting blood glucose, plasma proteins, and squamous cell lung cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Multiplex plasma protein assays as a diagnostic tool for lung cancer.Cancer science · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lack of the established noninvasive diagnostic biomarkers causes delay in diagnosis of lung cancer (LC). The aim of this study was to explore the association between inflammatory and cancer-associated plasma proteins and LC and thereby discover potential biomarkers. Patients referred for suspected LC and later diagnosed with primary LC, other cancers, or no cancer (NC) were included in this study. Demographic information and plasma samples were collected, and diagnostic information was later retrieved from medical records. Relative quantification of 92 plasma proteins was carried out using the Olink Immuno-Onc-I panel. Association between expression levels of panel of proteins with different diagnoses was assessed using generalized linear model (GLM) with the binomial family and a logit-link function, considering confounder effects of age, gender, smoking, and pulmonary diseases. The analysis showed that the combination of five plasma proteins (CD83, GZMA, GZMB, CD8A, and MMP12) has higher diagnostic performance for primary LC in both early and advanced stages compared with NC. This panel demonstrated lower diagnostic performance for other cancer types. Moreover, inclusion of four proteins (GAL9, PDCD1, CD4, and HO1) to the aforementioned panel significantly increased the diagnostic performance for primary LC in advanced stage as well as for other cancers. Consequently, the collective expression profiles of select plasma proteins, especially when analyzed in conjunction, might have the potential to distinguish individuals with LC from NC. This suggests their utility as predictive biomarkers for identification of LC patients. The synergistic application of these proteins as biomarkers could pave the way for the development of diagnostic tools for early-stage LC 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.