ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2026
Plasma proteomic signatures improve risk stratification and personalized screening for gastric cancer.
Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate identification of individuals at high risk of gastric cancer (GC) remains a major challenge for effective screening. We aimed to identify plasma proteomic signatures and develop a risk prediction model for GC risk stratification.
methodsPlasma proteomic profiling was performed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in a case-control discovery set (100 GC cases and 94 controls). Candidate proteins were evaluated in 52,552 UK Biobank participants with a median follow-up of 13.63 years, during which 92 incident GC cases were identified. Risk models integrating clinical, genetic, and proteomic factors were developed using LASSO-penalized Cox regression with stability selection and internally validated using bootstrap resampling.
resultsAmong 2306 differentially expressed proteins in discovery, 25 were replicated in validation at nominal significance (P < 0.05) with consistent directions. Two proteins (CTSD and GGH) remained significant after false discovery rate correction. A primary proteomic model (clinical factors plus five proteins) improved discrimination versus clinical model (optimism-corrected C-index: 0.745 vs. 0.732, P = 0.046). Risk stratification revealed a clear GC risk gradient: hazard ratios were 6.08 (95% CI 2.15-17.20) for moderate-risk and 23.88 (95% CI 8.66-65.87) for high-risk groups. The risk score was also associated with GC risk as continuous variable (HR per standard deviation: 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.11). The 15-year cumulative incidence ranged from 0.02 to 0.56% across risk groups. Decision curve analysis indicated improved clinical utility.
conclusionsPlasma proteomic signatures may improve GC risk stratification beyond traditional clinical factors and could support more targeted screening strategies. Further validation is warranted.
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.