ArticleCancers2025
The DNA Methylation Marker
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomarkers for Gynaecological Cancers.Cancers · 2026Article
- Review
- HPV-Driven Cervical Carcinogenesis: Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms and Diagnostic Approaches.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Advances in the application of gene methylation detection in cervical cancer screening.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of DNA Methylation Markers for Detecting Cervical Precancer and Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative performance of hrHPV testing and PAX1/ZNF671 methylation in triaging women with abnormal cytology: a study of paired urine, vaginal and cervical scrape samples.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/
objectivesMost cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) regress over time. Diagnostic screenings are limited and cannot identify the disease trend, which leads to the risk of overtreatment. Reliable methods are needed to preselect patients who will probably progress. The diagnostic GynTect
methodsWe tested 289 FFPE samples from 139 patients with varying CIN grades and disease trends, including regressive, persistent, progressive, and recurrent disease. Additionally, we correlated age and human papillomavirus (HPV) status with the results.
resultsAlthough there are differences between FFPE material and cervical scrapes, we achieved a similar increase in
conclusionsThe methylation of
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.