ArticleCancer science2024
Cervical mucus can be used for metabolite screening in cervical 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 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.
- Microbiome-Metabolome Crosstalk in HPV Pathogenesis: From Ecosystem Dynamics to Translational Biomarkers.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Vaginal Microecological Imbalance, Human Papillomavirus Infection, and Cervical Carcinogenesis: Mechanisms and Clinical Implications.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Distinct cervical microbiome and metabolite profiles before and after menopause: implications for cervical cancer progression.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Cervical mucus can be used for metabolite screening in cervical 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Approximately 660,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer annually. Current screening options such as cytology or human papillomavirus testing have limitations, creating a need to identify more effective ancillary biomarkers for triage. Here, we evaluated whether metabolomic analysis of cervical mucus metabolism could be used to identify biomarkers of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer. The case-control group consisted of 181 CIN, 69 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) patients, and 48 healthy controls in the primary cohort. We undertook metabolomic analyses using ultra-HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to profile metabolite characteristics, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis identified biomarker candidates. Five metabolites conferred the highest discriminatory power for SCC: oxidized glutathione (GSSG) (area under the ROC curve, 0.924; 95% confidence interval, 0.877-0.971), malic acid (0.914, 0.859-0.968), kynurenine (0.884, 0.823-0.945), GSSG/glutathione (GSH) (0.936, 0.892-0.979), and kynurenine/tryptophan (0.909, 0.856-0.961). Malic acid was the best marker for detection of CIN2 or worse (0.858, 0.793-0.922) and was a clinically useful metabolite. We confirmed the reproducibility of the results by validation cohort. Additionally, metabolomic analyses revealed eight pathways strongly associated with cervical neoplasia. Of these, only the tricarboxylic acid cycle was strongly associated with all CINs and cancer, indicating active energy production. Aberrant arginine metabolism by decreasing arginine and increasing citrulline might reduce tumor immunity. Changes in cysteine-methionine and GSH pathways might drive the initiation and progression of cervical cancer. These results suggest that metabolic analysis can identify ancillary biomarkers and could improve our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying cervical neoplasia.
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.