Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36727070›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

A four-microRNA panel in serum may serve as potential biomarker for renal cell carcinoma diagnosis.

Rongkang Li, Wenkang Chen, Chong Lu, Xinji Li, Xuan Chen, Guocheng Huang, Zhenyu Wen, Hang Li, Lingzhi Tao, Yimin Hu and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Rongkang LiDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Wenkang ChenDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Chong LuDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Xinji LiDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Xuan ChenDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Guocheng HuangDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Zhenyu WenDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Hang LiDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Lingzhi TaoDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Yimin HuDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Zhengping ZhaoDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Zebo ChenDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Liangchao NiDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Yongqing LaiDepartment of Urology, Guangdong and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Genetics, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Clinical College of Anhui Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one out of the most universal malignant tumors globally, and its incidence is increasing annually. MicroRNA (miRNA) in serum could be considered as a non-invasive detecting biomarker for RCC diagnosis. Method: A total of 224 participants (112 RCC patients (RCCs) and 112 normal controls (NCs)) were enrolled in the three-phrase study. Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) was applied to reveal the miRNA expression levels in RCCs and NCs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were utilized to predict the diagnostic ability of serum miRNAs for RCC. Bioinformatic analysis and survival analysis were also included in our study. Results: Compared to NCs, the expression degree of miR-155-5p, miR-224-5p in serum was significantly upregulated in RCC patients, and miR-1-3p, miR-124-3p, miR-129-5p, and miR-200b-3p were downregulated. A four-miRNA panel was construed, and the AUC of the panel was 0.903 (95% CI: 0.847-0.944; p < 0.001; sensitivity = 75.61%, specificity = 93.67%). Results from GEPIA database indicated that CHL1, MPP5, and SORT1 could be seen as promising target genes of the four-miRNA panel. Survival analysis of candidate miRNAs manifested that miR-155-5p was associated with the survival rate of RCC significantly. Conclusions: The four-miRNA panel in serum has a great potential to be non-invasive biomarkers for RCC sift to check.

Indexed as

bioinformaticscirculating biomarkerdiagnosislogistic regression modelmicroRNArenal cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID36727070
PMCPMC9885090

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.