ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Assessing the translation of diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers from bench to bedside.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Signaling Pathways, Clinical Features, Screening, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Mechanism-Driven Diagnostic Development: A Specimen-Aware Framework Illustrated by Colorectal Cancer and Solid Tumours.Cancers · 2026Review
- Validation of the biomarker toolkit using diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers - an evidence-based tool to support clinical adoption of biomarkers.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Differential analysis of urinary stable downregulated proteins in male patients after colorectal cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Evidence demonstrates that screening identifies patients with earlier disease to improve survival. It is imperative that diagnostic biomarkers are efficiently translated to clinical practice. Aim: We aimed to assess the state of biomarker translation by comparing the number of diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers in clinical use (successful) with the total number of discovered diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers not yet clinically useful (stalled). Method: A literature search identified all published diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers. Data was extracted from eligible papers including biomarker name, authors, journal and impact factor, and publication date. Guidelines from national and international authorities/groups were searched and a clinical expert consulted to identify successful diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers. Outcomes included number of stalled and successful diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers discovered in the literature, number of publications for each biomarker and their highest journal impact factor. Results: After screening >32,000 papers, 2,910 diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers were identified. Of these, four were approved for use in patient care at the time of review, representing a translation rate of just 0.14%. Successful biomarkers were found to have a higher publication frequency, and higher journal impact factor when compared to stalled biomarkers. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a profoundly low rate of translation of diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers and identifies the huge translation gap within this field. 84% of biomarkers have only one published paper, suggesting a lack of progression toward approval and commercialisation. There is great scope for improved biomarker translation.
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.