ArticleScientific reports2025
Altered metabolic profiles in colon and rectal cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Metabolomics and proteomics analyses reveal the potiental mechanisms underlying colorectal cancer and chemotherapy targets.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- A Stability-Oriented Biomarker Selection Framework Synergistically Driven by Robust Rank Aggregation and L1-Sparse Modeling.Metabolites · 2025Article
- Clinical, Immunohistochemical, and Inflammatory Profiles in Colorectal Cancer: The Impact of MMR Deficiency.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed malignant tumour in worldwide populations. Although colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) are often discussed together, there is a global trend towards considering them as two separate disease entities. It is necessary to choice the appropriate treatment for CC and RC based on their own characteristics. Hence, it is a great importance to find effective biomarkers to distinguish CC from RC. In the present study, a total of 343 participants were recruited, including 132 healthy individuals, 101 patients with CC, and 110 patients with RC. The concentrations of 93 metabolites were determined by using a combination of dried blood spot sampling and direct infusion mass spectrometry technology. Multiple algorithms were applied to characterize altered metabolic profiles in CC and RC. Significantly altered metabolites were screened for distinguishing RC from CC in training set. A biomarker panel including Glu, C0, C8, C20, Gly/Ala, and C10:1 was tested with tenfold cross-validation and an independent test set, and showed the potential to distinguish between RC and CC. The metabolomics analysis makes contribution to summarize the metabolic differences in RC and CC, which might provide further guidance on novel clinical designs for the two diseases.
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.