Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical proteomics: A need to define the field and to begin to set adequate standards

Open access
Mischak, Harald, Apweiler, Rolf, Banks, Rosamonde E., Conaway, Mark, Coon, Joshua, Dominiczak, Anna, Ehrich, Jochen H. H., Fliser, Danilo, Girolami, Mark, Hermjakob, Henning, Hochstrasser, Denis, Jankowski, Joachim, Julian, Bruce A., Kolch, Walter, Massy, Ziad A., Neusuess, Christian, Novak, Jan, Peter, Karlheinz, Rossing, Kasper, Schanstra, Joost, Semmes, O. John, Theodorescu, Dan, Thongboonkerd, Visith, Weissinger, Eva M., Van Eyk, Jennifer E., Yamamoto, Tadashi·2007·PROTEOMICS – Clinical Applications
DOI 10.1002/prca.200600771
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this manuscript is to initiate a constructive discussion about the definition of clinical proteomics, study requirements, pitfalls and (potential) use. Furthermore, we hope to stimulate proposals for the optimal use of future opportunities and seek unification of the approaches in clinical proteomic studies. We have outlined our collective views about the basic principles that should be considered in clinical proteomic studies, including sample selection, choice of technology and appropriate quality control, and the need for collaborative interdisciplinary efforts involving clinicians and scientists. Furthermore, we propose guidelines for the critical aspects that should be included in published reports. Our hope is that, as a result of stimulating discussion, a consensus will be reached amongst the scientific community leading to guidelines for the studies, similar to those already published for mass spectrometric sequencing data. We contend that clinical proteomics is not just a collection of studies dealing with analysis of clinical samples. Rather, the essence of clinical proteomics should be to address clinically relevant questions and to improve the state‐of‐the‐art, both in diagnosis and in therapy of diseases.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/prca.200600771

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 307

Metadata

Authors
Mischak, H., Apweiler, R., Banks, R. E., Conaway, M., Coon, J., Dominiczak, A., Ehrich, J. H. H., Fliser, D., Girolami, M., Hermjakob, H., Hochstrasser, D., Jankowski, J., Julian, B. A., Kolch, W., Massy, Z. A., Neusuess, C., Novak, J., Peter, K., Rossing, K., Schanstra, J., Semmes, O. J., Theodorescu, D., Thongboonkerd, V., Weissinger, E. M., Van Eyk, J. E., & Yamamoto, T.
Venue
PROTEOMICS – Clinical Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-02
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
148-156
ISSN
  • 1862-8346 (ISSN-L)
  • 1862-8354
DOI
10.1002/prca.200600771
OpenAlex
W1992271070
Cited by
307
References
30
FWCI
22.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.