ReviewMolecular biology reports2026
DNA methylation biomarkers for early detection of ovarian cancer.
Review in Molecular biology reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ovarian cancer (OC) remains difficult to detect at an early stage, and current screening approaches using CA125 and transvaginal ultrasonography have not demonstrated sufficient benefit for population screening. DNA methylation is a promising biomarker class because epigenetic alterations may arise early in tumourigenesis, can be detected in circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and may provide tissue-of-origin information. This review critically evaluates recent evidence on DNA methylation biomarkers for early OC detection. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for studies published between January 2020 and September 2025, supplemented by selected earlier studies of biological or methodological relevance. Evidence was synthesised across single-gene biomarkers, multi-locus panels, genome-wide signatures, assay platforms, and machine-learning classifiers, with emphasis on early-stage performance, histological representation, comparator populations, analytical methodology, and validation design. Single-gene markers such as BRCA1, RASSF1A, OPCML, HOXA9, and HIC1 show variable performance, while multi-gene and classifier-based approaches generally provide stronger discrimination. However, many studies remain limited by retrospective case-control designs, small FIGO stage I-II subsets, predominance of serous disease, and insufficient prospective validation. Integration with CA125 may improve sensitivity but can reduce specificity, which is critical in low-prevalence screening. Clinical translation will therefore require minimal and reproducible methylation signatures, standardised low-input cfDNA workflows, rigorous external validation, and prospective longitudinal evaluation in intended-use populations.
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.