ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental hepatology
Challenges and Recent Advances in Diagnosing Wilson Disease.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transplant-Free Recovery in Wilson Disease-Associated Acute Liver Failure.ACG case reports journal · 2026Article
- Iron and Other Metal Ions in Human Health and Disease.MedComm · 2026Review
- When Speech Signals Wilson Disease: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Multiscale computational genomics in Wilson disease: from atomic dynamics to clinical prediction.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
- Harnessing the microbiota-gut-brain axis to prevent and treat pediatric neurodevelopmental disorders: translational insights and strategies.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Cuproptosis: a novel therapeutic mechanism in lung cancer.Cancer cell international · 2025Review
- Clinical and Molecular Analysis ofSultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wilson disease (WD) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder caused by ATP7B gene mutations, leading to pathological copper accumulation that primarily affects the liver, brain, and eyes. Diagnosing WD remains a significant challenge due to its highly variable clinical presentation, which ranges from asymptomatic biochemical abnormalities to acute liver failure and severe neuropsychiatric manifestations. Traditional diagnostic markers, such as serum ceruloplasmin, urinary copper excretion, and liver biopsy, lack sufficient specificity and sensitivity, often leading to delays in diagnosis and misclassification. Additionally, the absence of a single gold-standard test and the overlap with other hepatic and neurological disorders further complicate early detection. Recent advances in diagnostic techniques offer promising solutions to overcome these limitations. Novel biomarkers, including relative exchangeable copper (REC) and ATP7B protein quantification in dried blood spots have demonstrated improved accuracy in distinguishing WD from other conditions. Advanced imaging modalities, such as anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM), and copper-64 positron emission tomography imaging provide noninvasive tools for detecting early disease-related changes. Furthermore, next-generation sequencing (NGS) enhances genetic screening, facilitating earlier diagnosis, and family screening. A comprehensive approach integrating conventional and emerging diagnostic methodologies is essential for improving early detection and patient outcomes. Greater awareness of the limitations of traditional tests and the incorporation of novel biomarkers and imaging techniques into clinical practice can help refine diagnostic accuracy, reduce delays, and optimize treatment strategies for WD.
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.