ArticleJournal of molecular histology2025
Letter to the editor comments on 'PBK as a Novel Biomarker with Excellent Diagnostic and Prognostic Value in HCC Associated with Immune Infiltration and Methylation'.
Article in Journal of molecular histology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This manuscript presents a letter to the editor addressing the study by Lv et al. (J Mol Histol 56(2):129, 2025), which identifies PDZ-binding kinase (PBK) as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While commending the article's comprehensive approach-including bioinformatics integration and validation of PBK's role in immune infiltration and methylation-the authors highlight three critical areas for improvement to enhance the study's rigor and clarity. First, they identify methodological issues in differential gene analysis, recommending RNA-seq-specific tools (e.g., DESeq2) over misapplied microarray frameworks like limma. Second, they critique the presentation of statistical significance, urging clearer reporting of P-values (e.g., P < 0.001) instead of P < 0.000. Third, they dispute the unrealistic survival curve in Fig. 2, suggesting evidence-based adjustments to reflect clinical plausibility. The letter emphasizes that addressing these concerns would strengthen the findings' impact on HCC research.
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.