The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Signal in Noise: Evaluating Reported Reproducibility of Serum Proteomic Tests for Ovarian Cancer
Abstract
Proteomic profiling of serum initially appeared to be dramatically effective for diagnosis of early-stage ovarian cancer, but these results have proven difficult to reproduce. A recent publication reported good classification in one dataset using results from training on a much earlier dataset, but the authors have since reported that they did not perform the analysis as described. We examined the reproducibility of the proteomic patterns across datasets in more detail. Our analysis reveals that the pattern that enabled successful classification is biologically implausible and that the method, properly applied, does not classify the data accurately. We show that the method used in previously published studies does not establish reproducibility and performs no better than chance for classifying the second dataset, in part because the second dataset is easy to classify correctly. We conclude that the reproducibility of the proteomic profiling approach has yet to be established.
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
Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer
Petricoin, E. F., Ardekani, A. M., Hitt, B. A., Levine, P. J., Fusaro, V. A., Steinberg, S. M., Mills, G. B., Simone, C., Fishman, D. A., Kohn, E. C., et al. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07746-2 · Cited by 3,236
Baggerly, K. A., Morris, J. S., & Coombes, K. R. (2004) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg484 · Cited by 621
Self-citationRogers, M. A., Clarke, P. A., Noble, J., Munro, N. P., Paul, A., Selby, P. J., & Banks, R. E. (2003) · PubMed · Cited by 220
Detection of cancer-specific markers amid massive mass spectral data
Zhu, W., Wang, X., Ma, Y., Rao, M., Glimm, J., & Kovach, J. S. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2532248100 · Cited by 184
Cited by
Strategies for discovering novel cancer biomarkers through utilization of emerging technologies
Kulasingam, V., & Diamandis, E. P. (2008) · Nature Clinical Practice Oncology · doi:10.1038/ncponc1187 · Cited by 771
Lessons from Controversy: Ovarian Cancer Screening and Serum Proteomics
Ransohoff, D. F. (2005) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/dji054 · Cited by 264
Molecular markers of early pancreatic cancer
Goggins, M. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.19.711 · Cited by 214
A Breath Fungal Secondary Metabolite Signature to Diagnose Invasive Aspergillosis
Koo, S., Thomas, H. R., Daniels, S. D., Lynch, R. C., Fortier, S. M., Shea, M. M., Rearden, P., Comolli, J. C., Baden, L. R., & Marty, F. M. (2014) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciu725 · Cited by 153
Applications of MALDI Mass Spectrometry in Clinical Chemistry
Duncan, M. W., Nedelkov, D., Walsh, R., & Hattan, S. J. (2016) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2015.239491 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Baggerly, K. A., Morris, J. S., Edmonson, S. R., & Coombes, K. R.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-02-15
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 307-309
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2128432283
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 51.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Signal in Noise: Evaluating Reported Reproducibility of Serum Proteomic Tests for Ovarian Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/dji008
- The paper
- Baggerly, K. A., Morris, J. S., Edmonson, S. R., & Coombes, K. R. (2005). Signal in Noise: Evaluating Reported Reproducibility of Serum Proteomic Tests for Ovarian Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji008
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.
