ArticleScientific reports2025
Optimal positioning of biomarkers according to ulcerative colitis activity.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Disease Extent on Leucine-Rich α2-Glycoprotein as a Marker for Endoscopic Mucosal Healing in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Association between the C-reactive protein to albumin ratio and unplanned readmission in ulcerative colitis: insights from a cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
The diagnostic performance and clinical utility of fecal calprotectin (FC), fecal immunochemical occult blood test (FIT), leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein (LRG), C-reactive protein (CRP), and prostaglandin E-major urinary metabolite (PGE-MUM) as established biomarkers for ulcerative colitis (UC) were evaluated. Significant correlations were observed between the clinical activity index, Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES), and each biomarker. Among MES groups, fecal biomarkers demonstrated significant differences, except between MES 2 and MES 3. CRP and LRG showed significant differences, except between MES 1 and MES 2. PGE-MUM exhibited significant differences across all MES groups. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in predicting MES 0 or 1 were as follows: FC, 0.891; FIT, 0.853; LRG, 0.723; CRP, 0.747; PGE-MUM, 0.795. For predicting MES 0 alone, AUCs were as follows: FC, 0.885; FIT, 0.845; LRG, 0.708; CRP, 0.691; PGE-MUM, 0.732. In distinguishing between each MES group, fecal biomarkers exhibited the highest AUC and accuracy in differentiating MES 0 from MES 1, whereas LRG, CRP, and PGE-MUM were most effective in differentiating MES 2 from MES 3. In summary, in UC, fecal biomarkers effectively detect mucosal healing, whereas LRG, CRP, and PGE-MUM are valuable for assessing mucosal healing and active inflammation.
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.