The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Framework for Evaluating Biomarkers for Early Detection: Validation of Biomarker Panels for Ovarian Cancer
Open accessAbstract
A panel of biomarkers may improve predictive performance over individual markers. Although many biomarker panels have been described for ovarian cancer, few studies used prediagnostic samples to assess the potential of the panels for early detection. We conducted a multisite systematic evaluation of biomarker panels using prediagnostic serum samples from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial. Using a nested case–control design, levels of 28 biomarkers were measured laboratory-blinded in 118 serum samples obtained before cancer diagnosis and 951 serum samples from matched controls. Five predictive models, each containing 6 to 8 biomarkers, were evaluated according to a predetermined analysis plan. Three sequential analyses were conducted: blinded validation of previously established models (step 1); simultaneous split-sample discovery and validation of models (step 2); and exploratory discovery of new models (step 3). Sensitivity, specificity, sensitivity at 98% specificity, and AUC were computed for the models and CA125 alone among 67 cases diagnosed within one year of blood draw and 476 matched controls. In step 1, one model showed comparable performance to CA125, with sensitivity, specificity, and AUC at 69.2%, 96.6%, and 0.892, respectively. Remaining models had poorer performance than CA125 alone. In step 2, we observed a similar pattern. In step 3, a model derived from all 28 markers failed to show improvement over CA125. Thus, biomarker panels discovered in diagnostic samples may not validate in prediagnostic samples; utilizing prediagnostic samples for discovery may be helpful in developing validated early detection panels. Cancer Prev Res; 4(3); 375–83. ©2011 AACR.
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
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
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
Phases 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
Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications
Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Ntzani, E. E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2003) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00013-5 · Cited by 323
Cited by
Biosensor technology: recent advances in threat agent detection and medicine
Kirsch, J., Siltanen, C., Zhou, Q., Revzin, A., & Simonian, A. (2013) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c3cs60141b · Cited by 462
Trabert, B., Ness, R. B., Lo-Ciganic, W.-H., Murphy, M. A., Goode, E. L., Poole, E. M., Brinton, L. A., Webb, P. M., Nagle, C. M., Jordan, S. J., et al. (2014) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djt431 · Cited by 243
Self-citationThe PLCO Biorepository: Creating, Maintaining, and Administering a Unique Biospecimen Resource
Carrick, D., Black, A., Gohagan, J., Khan, A., Pettit, K., Williams, C., Yu, K., Yurgalevitch, S., Huang, W.-Y., & Zhu, C. (2015) · Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials · doi:10.2174/1574887110666150730121429 · Cited by 29
Self-citationAs If Biomarker Discovery Isn't Hard Enough: The Consequences of Poorly Characterized Reagents
Rodland, K. D. (2014) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2013.216382 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhu, C. S., Pinsky, P. F., Cramer, D. W., Ransohoff, D. F., Hartge, P., Pfeiffer, R. M., Urban, N., Mor, G., Bast, R. C., Moore, L. E., Lokshin, A. E., McIntosh, M. W., Skates, S. J., Vitonis, A., Zhang, Z., Ward, D. C., Symanowski, J. T., Lomakin, A., Fung, E. T., Sluss, P. M., Scholler, N., Lu, K. H., Marrangoni, A. M., Patriotis, C., Srivastava, S., Buys, S. S., & Berg, C. D.
- Venue
- Cancer Prevention Research
- Published
- 2011-03-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 375-383
- ISSN
- 1940-6207 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-6215
- OpenAlex
- W2115258708
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 30.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: A Framework for Evaluating Biomarkers for Early Detection: Validation of Biomarker Panels for Ovarian Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1158/1940-6207.capr-10-0193
- The paper
- Zhu, C. S., Pinsky, P. F., Cramer, D. W., Ransohoff, D. F., Hartge, P., Pfeiffer, R. M., Urban, N., Mor, G., Bast, R. C., Moore, L. E., Lokshin, A. E., McIntosh, M. W., Skates, S. J., Vitonis, A., Zhang, Z., Ward, D. C., Symanowski, J. T., Lomakin, A., Fung, E. T., . . . Berg, C. D. (2011). A Framework for Evaluating Biomarkers for Early Detection: Validation of Biomarker Panels for Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Prevention Research. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.capr-10-0193
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.