The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lessons from Controversy: Ovarian Cancer Screening and Serum Proteomics
Abstract
In 2002 a study reported that a blood test, based on pattern-recognition proteomics mass spectroscopy analysis of serum, was nearly 100% sensitive and specific to detect ovarian cancer. Plans to introduce a commercial screening test by early 2004 were delayed amid concerns about whether the approach was reproducible and reliable. In this issue of JNCI, two commentaries discuss whether the initial results are reproducible and whether bias may account for results. This essay describes how threats to validity from chance and bias may cause erroneous results and inflated expectations in the kind of observational research being conducted in several "-omics" fields to assess molecular markers for diagnosis and prognosis of cancer. To address such threats and to realize the potential of new -omics technology will require application of appropriate rules of evidence in the design, conduct, and interpretation of clinical research about molecular markers.
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
A Gene-Expression Signature as a Predictor of Survival in Breast Cancer
van de Vijver, M. J., He, Y. D., van 't Veer, L. J., Dai, H., Hart, A. A. M., Voskuil, D. W., Schreiber, G. J., Peterse, J. L., Roberts, C., Marton, M. J., et al. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa021967 · Cited by 6,488
A Multigene Assay to Predict Recurrence of Tamoxifen-Treated, Node-Negative Breast Cancer
Paik, S., Shak, S., Tang, G., Kim, C., Baker, J., Cronin, M., Baehner, F. L., Walker, M. G., Watson, D., Park, T., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa041588 · Cited by 6,277
Rosenwald, A., Wright, G., Chan, W. C., Connors, J. M., Campo, E., Fisher, R. I., Gascoyne, R. D., Muller-Hermelink, H. K., Smeland, E. B., Giltnane, J. M., et al. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa012914 · Cited by 3,829
Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine.
(1991) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-114-9-825_9 · Cited by 3,476
Hennekens, C. H., Buring, J. E., & Mayrent, S. L. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,319
Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials.
(1991) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-114-9-825_10 · Cited by 1,835
Problems of Spectrum and Bias in Evaluating the Efficacy of Diagnostic Tests
Ransohoff, D. F., & Feinstein, A. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197810262991705 · Cited by 1,734
Self-citationPhases of Biomarker Development for Early Detection of Cancer
Pepe, M. S., Etzioni, R., Feng, Z., Potter, J. D., Thompson, M. L., Thornquist, M., Winget, M., & Yasui, Y. (2001) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.14.1054 · Cited by 1,686
Selection bias in gene extraction on the basis of microarray gene-expression data
Ambroise, C., & McLachlan, G. J. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.102102699 · Cited by 1,480
Pitfalls in the Use of DNA Microarray Data for Diagnostic and Prognostic Classification
Simon, R., Radmacher, M. D., Dobbin, K., & McShane, L. M. (2003) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/95.1.14 · Cited by 1,006
Cited by
Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data
Leek, J. T., Scharpf, R. B., Bravo, H. C., Simcha, D., Langmead, B., Johnson, W. E., Geman, D., Baggerly, K., & Irizarry, R. A. (2010) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2825 · Cited by 2,196
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
The Heterogeneity Problem: Approaches to Identify Psychiatric Subtypes
Feczko, E., Miranda-Dominguez, O., Marr, M., Graham, A. M., Nigg, J. T., & Fair, D. A. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2019.03.009 · Cited by 443
Molecular markers of early pancreatic cancer
Goggins, M. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.19.711 · Cited by 214
Evaluating and minimizing batch effects in metabolomics
Han, W., & Li, L. (2022) · Mass Spectrometry Reviews · doi:10.1002/mas.21672 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Ransohoff, D. F.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-02-15
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 315-319
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2131865610
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 47.27
- 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: Lessons from Controversy: Ovarian Cancer Screening and Serum Proteomics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/dji054
- The paper
- Ransohoff, D. F. (2005). Lessons from Controversy: Ovarian Cancer Screening and Serum Proteomics. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji054
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.
