ArticleJournal of oncology2022
Identification of Diagnostic Markers in Infantile Hemangiomas.
Article in Journal of oncology, 2022. 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.
- Machine learning identifies immune-perinatal predictors of infantile hemangioma.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Infantile Hemangiomas (IHs) are common benign vascular tumors of infancy that may have serious consequences. The research on diagnostic markers for IHs is scarce. Methods: The "limma" Results: A total of 205 DEGs were singled out from IHs samples of 6-, 12-, and 24-month-old infants. These genes principally participated in vasculogenesis and development-related, endothelial cell-related biological processes. Then we mined 127 interacting proteins and created a network with 127 nodes and 251 edges. Furthermore, LASSO and SVM-RRF algorithms identified five diagnostic genes, namely, TMEM2, GUCY1A2, ISL1, WARS, and STEAP4. ROC curve analysis results indicated that the diagnostic genes had a powerful ability to distinguish IHs samples from normal samples. Next, the results of GSEA for a single gene illustrated that all five diagnostic genes inhibited the "valine, leucine, and isoleucine degradation" pathway in the development of IHs. WARS, TMEM2, and STEAP4 activated the "blood vessel development" and "vasculature development" in IHs. Subsequently, inhibitors targeting TMEM2, GUCY1A2, ISL1, and STEAP4 were mined. Finally, 14 transcription factors regulating GUCY1A2, 14 transcription factors regulating STEAP4, and 26 transcription factors regulating ISL1 were predicted. Conclusion: This study identified five diagnostic markers for IHs and further explored the mechanisms and targeting drugs, providing a basis for diagnosing and treating IHs.
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.