ArticleMolecular cancer2024
Refining the diagnostic utility of OLFM4 in gastric cancer precursors: a call for rigorous methodologies.
Article in Molecular cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-Cell Transcriptomic Analysis Identifies an OLFM4-Associated Gastric Cancer Cell State with Palmitoylation-Related Signatures and Altered Metabolic Activities.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Basal gland localization and focal distribution of OLFM4-expressing cells in increasing severity of gastric intestinal metaplasia.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Precancerous pathways to gastric cancer: a review of experimental animal models recapitulating the correa cascade.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This commentary offers a thoughtful discussion of the study by Wei et al. published in the journal on the role of Olfactomedin 4 (OLFM4) in incomplete intestinal metaplasia, a gastric precancerous condition. The original paper introduces OLFM4 as a novel biomarker with potential enhanced diagnostic efficacy compared to established markers. However, several methodological and interpretive considerations are noted. The histopathological findings could be refined by using higher magnification to better elucidate the cellular localization of OLFM4. Including high-resolution images for key stainings would enhance the study's robustness in expression profiling. The statistical approach could be strengthened by employing more rigorous, quantitative methodologies. Additionally, integrating immunofluorescence double-staining may improve the reliability of the results. Discrepancies in immunohistochemical signals across datasets suggest a need for further investigation into tissue section representativeness. Clarifying the term "precancerous lesions of gastric carcinoma cells" to align with widely accepted definitions would enhance clarity. The choice of the GES-1 cell model treated with MNNG could be reconsidered in favor of more established models such as organoids, air-liquid interface models, and gastric cancer-specific cell lines. The in vivo MNNG-alcohol combination model might require additional empirical support, given the limited and conflicting literature on this approach, to ensure an accurate portrayal of IM pathogenesis. The commentary concludes with a call for stringent and standardized methodologies in biomarker research to ensure the clinical applicability and reliability of biomarker studies, particularly in the context of gastric cancer detection and intervention.
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.