Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 429

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 237 of the 237 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Approaches and Methods to Measure Oxidative Stress in Clinical Samples: Research Applications in the Cancer Field

Open access
Katerji, Meghri, Filippova, Maria, Duerksen-Hughes, Penelope·2019·Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Abstract

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are common by-products of normal aerobic cellular metabolism and play important physiological roles in intracellular cell signaling and homeostasis. The human body is equipped with antioxidant systems to regulate the levels of these free radicals and maintain proper physiological function. However, a condition known as oxidative stress (OS) occurs, when ROS overwhelm the body’s ability to readily detoxify them. Excessive amounts of free radicals generated under OS conditions cause oxidative damage to proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids, severely compromising cell health and contributing to disease development, including cancer. Biomarkers of OS can therefore be exploited as important tools in the assessment of disease status in humans. In the present review, we discuss different approaches used for the evaluation of OS in clinical samples. The described methods are limited in their ability to reflect on OS only partially, revealing the need of more integrative approaches examining both pro- and antioxidant reactions with higher sensitivity to physiological/pathological alternations. We also provide an overview of recent findings of OS in patients with different types of cancer. Identification of OS biomarkers in clinical samples of cancer patients and defining their roles in carcinogenesis hold great promise in promoting the development of targeted therapeutic approaches and diagnostic strategies assessing disease status. However, considerable data variability across laboratories makes it difficult to draw general conclusions on the significance of these OS biomarkers. To our knowledge, no adequate comparison has yet been performed between different biomarkers and the methodologies used to measure them, making it difficult to conduct a meta-analysis of findings from different groups. A critical evaluation and adaptation of proposed methodologies available in the literature should therefore be undertaken, to enable the investigators to choose the most suitable procedure for each chosen biomarker.

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 · 10.1155/2019/1279250

Cites

237 of 237 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

Show all 237 references

Cited by

See all 429

Metadata

Authors
Katerji, M., Filippova, M., & Duerksen-Hughes, P.
Venue
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-03-12
Volume
2019
Pages
1-29
ISSN
  • 1942-0994 (ISSN-L)
  • 1942-0900
OpenAlex
W2921726967
Cited by
429
References
237
FWCI
23.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Approaches and Methods to Measure Oxidative Stress in Clinical Samples: Research Applications in the Cancer Field. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1155/2019/1279250
The paper
Katerji, M., Filippova, M., & Duerksen-Hughes, P. (2019). Approaches and Methods to Measure Oxidative Stress in Clinical Samples: Research Applications in the Cancer Field. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1279250

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.