ArticleCancers2022
Biomarker-Based Models for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Mass: A Multicenter Validation Study.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating Tumor DNA in Ovarian Cancer: Emerging Roles in Early Detection, Risk Stratification, and Disease Monitoring.Cancers · 2026Review
- Menstrual Effluent in the Pathogenesis and Diagnosis of Endometriosis-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinical characteristics, treatment status and prognosis analysis of elderly patients with ovarian cancer: a real world clinical study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Power of the Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio for Estimating Malignancy in Patients with Adnexal Masses: A Methodological Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Macrophage migration inhibitory factor mediates joint capsule fibrosis via facilitating phospholipid metabolite PGE2 production in fibroblasts.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025Article
- CA125 as a Potential Biomarker in Non-Malignant Serous Effusions: Diagnostic and Prognostic Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Association of the Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms rs11556218, rs4778889, rs4072111, and rs1131445 of the Interleukin-16 Gene with Ovarian Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Navigating the Proteomic Landscape of Menopause: A Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Article
- A Novel Predictive Multi-Marker Test for the Pre-Surgical Identification of Ovarian Cancer.Cancers · 2023Article
- Diagnostics of Ovarian Tumors in Postmenopausal Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Current and Emerging Methods for Ovarian Cancer Screening and Diagnostics: A Comprehensive Review.Cancers · 2022Review
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 at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ovarian cancer (OC) is the most lethal genital malignancy in women. We aimed to develop and validate new proteomic-based models for non-invasive diagnosis of OC. We also compared them to the modified Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA-50), the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) and our earlier Proteomic Model 2017. Biomarkers were assessed using bead-based multiplex technology (Luminex®) in 356 women (250 with malignant and 106 with benign ovarian tumors) from five European centers. The training cohort included 279 women from three centers, and the validation cohort 77 women from two other centers. Of six previously studied serum proteins (CA125, HE4, osteopontin [OPN], prolactin, leptin, and macrophage migration inhibitory factor [MIF]), four contributed significantly to the Proteomic Model 2021 (CA125, OPN, prolactin, MIF), while leptin and HE4 were omitted by the algorithm. The Proteomic Model 2021 revealed a c-index of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96, 0.99) in the training cohort; however, in the validation cohort it only achieved a c-index of 0.82 (95% CI 0.72, 0.91). Adding patient age to the Proteomic Model 2021 constituted the Combined Model 2021, with a c-index of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97, 1) in the training cohort and a c-index of 0.86 (95% CI 0.78, 0.95) in the validation cohort. The Full Combined Model 2021 (all six proteins with age) yielded a c-index of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97, 0.99) in the training cohort and a c-index of 0.89 (95% CI 0.81, 0.97) in the validation cohort. The validation of our previous Proteomic Model 2017, as well as the ROMA-50 and CPH-I revealed a c-index of 0.9 (95% CI 0.82, 0.97), 0.54 (95% CI 0.38, 0.69) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.85, 0.98), respectively. In postmenopausal women, the three newly developed models all achieved a specificity of 1.00, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1.00, and a sensitivity of >0.9. Performance in women under 50 years of age (c-index below 0.6) or with normal CA125 (c-index close to 0.5) was poor. CA125 and OPN had the best discriminating power as single markers. In summary, the CPH-I, the two combined 2021 Models, and the Proteomic Model 2017 showed satisfactory diagnostic accuracies, with no clear superiority of either model. Notably, although combining values of only four proteins with age, the Combined Model 2021 performed comparably to the Full Combined Model 2021. The models confirmed their exceptional diagnostic performance in women aged ≥50. All models outperformed the ROMA-50.
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.