ArticleHealth science reports2025
Evaluating the Diagnostic Potential of Biomarker Panels in Breast Cancer and Prostate Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Noninvasive diagnostic methods are essential for early cancer detection and improved patient outcomes. Circulating biomarkers, measurable indicators of pathological processes, offer a promising avenue, yet optimal panels for reliable cancer diagnosis remain undefined. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of selected plasma biomarkers in distinguishing breast cancer and prostate adenocarcinoma patients from healthy individuals, using statistical analysis and machine learning. Materials and Methods: We analyzed blood samples from 162 participants (73 cancer patients: 51 with breast cancer and 22 with prostate adenocarcinoma; 89 healthy controls). Levels of 12 cancer-associated biomarkers-including Ki67, DNMT1, BRCA1, and MPO-were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Statistical analyses, including the Mann-Whitney U test and machine learning models (random forest), were employed to assess the predictive accuracy of these biomarkers in distinguishing between cancerous and healthy states. Results: Biomarkers such as Ki67, DNMT1, and MPO were significantly elevated in cancer groups. Random forest models using selected combinations (e.g., BRCA1-CTA-TP53) achieved perfect classification accuracy (AUC = 1.00). However, high inter-marker correlations suggested potential redundancy, underscoring the need for biomarker panel optimization. Conclusion: Our findings support the potential of biomarker panels for accurate, noninvasive cancer diagnostics. Further validation in larger, more diverse cohorts is warranted to establish clinical utility and generalizability.
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.