ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2025
Pancreatic Cancer Detection and Differentiation from Chronic Pancreatitis: Potential Biomarkers Identified through a High-Throughput Multiplex Proteomic Assay and Machine Learning-Based Analysis.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2025. 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.
- Immune Markers and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in the European EPIC Cohort.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in chronic and autoimmune pancreatitis: diagnosis, prognosis, and personalized management.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Application of machine learning for prognostic modeling in unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC)-screening methods have limited accuracy despite their high clinical demand. Differential diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis (CP) poses another challenge for PC diagnosis. Therefore, we aimed to identify blood protein biomarkers for PC diagnosis and differential diagnosis of CP using high-throughput multiplex proteomic analysis. Methods: Two independent cohorts (N=88 and 80) were included, and residual serum samples were collected from all individuals (N=168). Each cohort consisted of four groups: healthy (H) individuals and those with CP, stage I/II PC (PC1), or stage III/IV PC (PC2). Protein expression in the first cohort was quantified using the Olink Immuno-Oncology and Oncology 3 proximity extension assay (PEA) panels and was analyzed using machine-learning (ML)-based analyses. Samples in the second cohort were utilized to verify candidate biomarkers in immunoassays. Results: Both the PEA and immunoassay results confirmed that previously recognized biomarkers, such as the mucin-16 and interleukin-6 proteins, were more highly expressed in the PC (PC1 and PC2) groups than in the non-PC (CP and H) groups. Several novel biomarkers for PC diagnosis were identified via ML-based feature extraction, including C1QA and CDHR2, whereas pro-neuropeptide Y (NPY) appeared to be a promising biomarker for the differential diagnosis of CP. Applying XGBoost classification incorporating the selected features resulted in an area under the curve of 0.92 (0.85-0.98) for differentiating the PC group from the CP and H groups. Conclusions: Promising blood biomarkers for PC diagnosis and differential diagnosis of CP were identified using a PEA platform and ML techniques.
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.