ArticleMedical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)2025
Hematological and Biochemical Predictors of Cancer Diagnosis: An Analytical Study from a Cancer-Enriched Clinical Cohort.
Article in Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Routine laboratory tests are almost universally ordered for patients investigated for possible cancer, yet it is still unclear how far these everyday measurements can help to separate malignant from non-malignant disease once a patient has reached specialist care. Objective: To describe the relationship between cancer diagnosis (cancer vs no cancer) and a set of simple demographic, hematological, biochemical, and clinical variables, and to examine whether any of these measures show a meaningful association with cancer status in a referred population. Methods: We carried out an analytical cross-sectional study of 1,000 individuals drawn from the Cancer Risk Stratification Using Lab Parameters dataset. Age, sex, smoking, family history, full blood count indices, blood glucose, CA-125, PSA, CEA, risk category, cancer stage, treatment outcome, and survival were retrieved. Cancer status (cancer vs no cancer) was the main outcome. Descriptive statistics were combined with χ² tests, independent t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson's correlations. Results: Cancer was present in just over four-fifths of the cohort. Most routine blood and chemistry values lay within conventional reference limits, and for almost all variables there were no statistically significant differences between cancer and non-cancer groups. Hemoglobin was modestly but significantly lower in patients with cancer. Cancer status was strongly related to stage, and showed a weaker association with survival. Conclusion: In this cancer-enriched referral population, single routine laboratory measures and basic demographic factors added little to the simple knowledge of whether a patient had been staged as having cancer. Hemoglobin behaved as a non-specific marker of disease burden rather than a diagnostic test.
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.