ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2018
Traps and trumps from adjacent-to-tumor samples in gastric cancer research.
Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- High expression of BBOX1 in paracancerous tissue is associated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Treasures from trash in cancer research.Oncotarget · 2022Article
- CD10 and Das1: a biomarker study using immunohistochemistry to subtype gastric intestinal metaplasia.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- A five-lncRNA model predicting overall survival in gastric cancer compared with normal tissues.Aging · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The search for cancer biomarkers is frequently based on comparisons between tumors and adjacent-to-tumor samples. However, even after histological confirmation of been free of cancer cells, these adjacent-to-tumor samples might harbor molecular alterations which are not sufficient to cause them to look like cancer, but can differentiate these cells from normal cells. When comparing them, potential biomarkers are missed, and mainly the opportunity of finding initial aberrations presents in both tumors and adjacent samples, but not in true normal samples from non-cancer patients, resulting in misinterpretations about the carcinogenic process. Nevertheless, collecting adjacent-to-tumor samples brings trumps to be explored. The addition of samples from non-cancer patients opens an opportunity to increase the finds of the molecular cascade of events in the carcinogenic process. Differences between normal samples and adjacent samples might represent the first steps of the carcinogenic process. Adding samples of non-cancer patients to the analysis of molecular alterations relevant to the carcinogenic process opens a new window of opportunities to the discovery of cancer biomarkers and molecular targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.