ReviewCancer innovation2023
Bibliometric and visualized analysis of applying tumor markers in lung cancer diagnosis from 2000 to 2022.
Review in Cancer innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A visual analysis of the research dynamics of biomarkers for lung cancer screening.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
- High level of anti-drug antibodies is associated with shorter survival in advanced solid cancer patients treated with Immune checkpoint inhibitors.Immunotherapy advances · 2025Article
- Bibliometric and visualized analysis of applying tumor markers in lung cancer diagnosis from 2000 to 2022.Cancer innovation · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Tumor marker (TM) detection can indicate the existence and growth of a tumor and has therefore been used extensively for diagnosing LC. Here, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to examine TM-related publications for LC diagnosis to illustrate the current state and future trends of this field, as well as to identify additional promising TMs with high sensitivity. Methods: Publications regarding TMs in LC diagnosis were downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection. CiteSpace was applied to perform a bibliometric analysis of journals, cocitation authors, keywords, and references related to this field. VOSviewer was used to generate concise diagrams about countries, institutions, authors, and keywords. Changes in the TM research frontier were analyzed through citation burst detection. Results: A total of 990 studies were analyzed in this work. The collaboration network analysis revealed that the People's Republic of China, Yonsei University, and Molina R were the most productive country, institution, and scholar, respectively. Additionally, Molina R was the author with the most citations. The National Natural Science Foundation of China was the largest funding source. "Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as tumor marker in lung cancer" was the top reference with the most citations, Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis of TMs in LC diagnosis presents the current trends and frontiers in this field. We summarized the research status of this field and the methods to improve the diagnostic efficacy of traditional serum TMs, as well as provided new directions and ideas for improving the LC clinical detection rate. Priority should be given to the transformation of computer-assisted diagnostic technology for clinical applications. In addition, circulating tumor cells, exosomes, and microRNAs were the current most cutting-edge TMs.
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.