ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Urinary metabolomics and proteomics for early detection of gastric cancer: insights from a two-center multicenter study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to develop a non-invasive method combining urinary metabolomics and proteomics to identify biomarkers for gastric cancer and to elucidate the molecular mechanisms associated with its progression. Methods: Urine samples from 30 advanced gastric cancer (AGC), 30 early gastric cancer (EGC), and 30 healthy controls (CG) were collected at two centers. Differential metabolites were identified using the UHPLC-MS instrument (VIP>1, FDR<0.05, |log2FC|≥1), and proteins were quantified using the TMT-based proteomics approach (VIP>1, FDR<0.05, |log2FC| ≥ 1.2). Key metabolites were selected via Random Forest and Boruta algorithms, and proteomic findings were validated using TCGA data. Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses were performed to explore enriched pathways. Results: A total of 350 differential metabolites were identified in AGC vs. CG, and 285 in EGC vs. CG, primarily involving amino acid, bile acid, and energy metabolism. Core metabolites such as butyrate, indolelactic acid, D-ribose-5-phosphate, and serine were included in diagnostic models. Proteomic analysis identified 376 differentially abundant proteins in AGC and 191 in EGC, enriched in immune response, cell adhesion, and protein hydrolysis. Key proteins in AGC included TNFRSF12A, ITGB3, HSPA8, and FTL, with significant upregulation or downregulation observed for each. For example, TNFRSF12A was upregulated (p < 0.05), while HSPA8 was downregulated (p < 0.05), and these proteins were linked to pathways such as cell adhesion molecules (CAMs), ECM-receptor interaction, and platelet activation. In EGC, proteins like ITGB3 and FTL were significantly upregulated (p < 0.05), with involvement in pathways such as HIF-1 signaling, glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, and antigen processing/presentation. Integrated analysis revealed 43 significantly enriched KEGG pathways in AGC and 30 in EGC, with notable pathways in amino acid metabolism, the TCA cycle, PI3K-Akt signaling, and immune response pathways. These findings highlight the involvement of cell adhesion, immune response, and metabolic signaling in the pathobiology of gastric cancer. Conclusion: The combination of urinary metabolomics and proteomics enables non-invasive detection of gastric cancer, revealing key biomarkers and pathways with potential clinical diagnostic significance. Further investigation is needed to confirm the diagnostic value of these findings in clinical 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.