ArticleScientific reports2025
A novel four-serum marker model for early detection and therapeutic monitoring of breast cancer.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction and validation of a predictive model of pathological complete response combined with MRI and tumor indicators for HER2-positive breast cancer after neoadjuvant targeted therapy.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram to assess recurrence risk in young patients with breast cancer based on preoperative serum tumor markers.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Development and External Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning Model Using Routine Blood Biomarkers for Differentiating Malignant Breast Nodules.Journal of inflammation research · 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
Abstract
Early diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) remains pivotal for enhancing patient outcomes, yet current imaging modalities face inherent limitations. This retrospective study, encompassing 1366 BC patients and 1186 healthy controls (HC) from Shenzhen Nanshan People's Hospital (2022-2025), developed and validated a serum tumor marker-based predictive model to address this gap. Eight markers-CEA, AFP, CA199, CA242, CA15-3, CA125, FER, and NSE-were analyzed, with multivariate logistic regression identifying AFP, CA242, CA15-3, and NSE as independent diagnostic predictors. The resulting four-marker panel demonstrated robust performance, achieving an AUC of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.89-0.92) with 77.3% sensitivity and 89.7% specificity in the development cohort (n = 1535), and sustained efficacy in validation (AUC = 0.82, 87.5% sensitivity, 72.8% specificity; n = 761). The model effectively stratified early-stage (T1/T2: 86.49% accuracy) versus advanced-stage (T3/T4: 92.00%) tumors, lymph node involvement (N0: 86.49%; N+: 88.00%), metastatic status (M0: 87.32%; M+: 85.71%), and molecular subtypes (Luminal A: 91.33%; Luminal B: 82.35%; HER2+: 84.61%; triple-negative: 87.75%). Notably, longitudinal risk score trends correlated with therapeutic response, declining in remission and rising with progression. These findings collectively highlight the model's dual utility as a high-accuracy diagnostic tool for early BC detection and a dynamic biomarker for monitoring treatment efficacy. This novel model may provide an auxiliary approach in current screening paradigms, underscoring its transformative potential in oncology practice.
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.