ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2020
Preliminary Study on the Identification of BRAF
Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methylglyoxal Adducts Levels in Blood Measured onNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the B-type Raf kinase (BRAF)
methodsIHC was used to detect the expression of BRAF
resultsIHC detection results revealed 13 cases of weakly positive (+), 1 case of moderately positive (++), and 28 cases of negative (-) CRC. Compared with the next-generation sequencing (NGS) results, the positive rate was 66.7%. The classification accuracy of calibration (CAC) was 100% compared with the results of NGS, demonstrating that the BRAF DISCUSSION: The NIRS-DA model-predicted results were in high agreement with the detection results of NGS, and the difference in IHC is not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, this study is a preliminary discussion on a methodology due to its small sample size.
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.