Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

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 access
Zhu, Claire S., Pinsky, Paul F., Cramer, Daniel W., Ransohoff, David F., Hartge, Patricia, Pfeiffer, Ruth M., Urban, Nicole, Mor, Gil, Bast, Robert C., Moore, Lee E., Lokshin, Anna E., McIntosh, Martin W., Skates, Steven J., Vitonis, Allison, Zhang, Zhen, Ward, David C., Symanowski, James T., Lomakin, Aleksey, Fung, Eric T., Sluss, Patrick M., Scholler, Nathalie, Lu, Karen H., Marrangoni, Adele M., Patriotis, Christos, Srivastava, Sudhir, Buys, Saundra S., Berg, Christine D.·2011·Cancer Prevention Research

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-10-0193

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 188

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.