The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The performance of the SEPT9 gene methylation assay and a comparison with other CRC screening tests: A meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
The SEPT9 gene methylation assay is the first FDA-approved blood assay for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Fecal immunochemical test (FIT), FIT-DNA test and CEA assay are also in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests used in CRC screening. This meta-analysis aims to review the SEPT9 assay performance and compare it with other IVD CRC screening tests. By searching the Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CBMdisc and CJFD database, 25 out of 180 studies were identified to report the SEPT9 assay performance. 2613 CRC cases and 6030 controls were included, and sensitivity and specificity were used to evaluate its performance at various algorithms. 1/3 algorithm exhibited the best sensitivity while 2/3 and 1/1 algorithm exhibited the best balance between sensitivity and specificity. The performance of the blood SEPT9 assay is superior to that of the serum protein markers and the FIT test in symptomatic population, while appeared to be less potent than FIT and FIT-DNA tests in asymptomatic population. In conclusion, 1/3 algorithm is recommended for CRC screening, and 2/3 or 1/1 algorithms are suitable for early detection for diagnostic purpose. The SEPT9 assay exhibited better performance in symptomatic population than in asymptomatic population.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal-Cancer Screening
Imperiale, T. F., Ransohoff, D. F., Itzkowitz, S. H., Levin, T. R., Lavin, P., Lidgard, G. P., Ahlquist, D. A., & Berger, B. M. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1311194 · Cited by 1,900
Marchevsky, A. M., & Wick, M. R. (2015) · Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/arpa.2014-0106-ra · Cited by 26
Cited by
Current and future perspectives of liquid biopsies in genomics-driven oncology
Heitzer, E., Haque, I. S., Roberts, C. E. S., & Speicher, M. R. (2019) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-018-0071-5 · Cited by 1,557
Epigenetics of colorectal cancer: biomarker and therapeutic potential
Jung, G., Hernández-Illán, E., Moreira, L., Balaguer, F., & Goel, A. (2020) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-019-0230-y · Cited by 813
Gorgannezhad, L., Umer, M., Islam, M. N., Nguyen, N.-T., & Shiddiky, M. J. A. (2018) · Lab on a Chip · doi:10.1039/c8lc00100f · Cited by 312
Metadata
- Authors
- Song, L., Jia, J., Peng, X., Xiao, W., & Li, Y.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2017-06-08
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3032-3032
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2621272124
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The performance of the SEPT9 gene methylation assay and a comparison with other CRC screening tests: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-017-03321-8
- The paper
- Song, L., Jia, J., Peng, X., Xiao, W., & Li, Y. (2017). The performance of the SEPT9 gene methylation assay and a comparison with other CRC screening tests: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03321-8
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.
