The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A data review and re-assessment of ovarian cancer serum proteomic profiling
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The early detection of ovarian cancer has the potential to dramatically reduce mortality. Recently, the use of mass spectrometry to develop profiles of patient serum proteins, combined with advanced data mining algorithms has been reported as a promising method to achieve this goal. In this report, we analyze the Ovarian Dataset 8-7-02 downloaded from the Clinical Proteomics Program Databank website, using nonparametric statistics and stepwise discriminant analysis to develop rules to diagnose patients, as well as to understand general patterns in the data that may guide future research. RESULTS: The mass spectrometry serum profiles derived from cancer and controls exhibited numerous statistical differences. For example, use of the Wilcoxon test in comparing the intensity at each of the 15,154 mass to charge (M/Z) values between the cancer and controls, resulted in the detection of 3,591 M/Z values whose intensities differed by a p-value of 10-6 or less. The region containing the M/Z values of greatest statistical difference between cancer and controls occurred at M/Z values less than 500. For example the M/Z values of 2.7921478 and 245.53704 could be used to significantly separate the cancer from control groups. Three other sets of M/Z values were developed using a training set that could distinguish between cancer and control subjects in a test set with 100% sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSION: The ability to discriminate between cancer and control subjects based on the M/Z values of 2.7921478 and 245.53704 reveals the existence of a significant non-biologic experimental bias between these two groups. This bias may invalidate attempts to use this dataset to find patterns of reproducible diagnostic value. To minimize false discovery, results using mass spectrometry and data mining algorithms should be carefully reviewed and benchmarked with routine statistical methods.
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
Cited by
Mass Spectrometry as a Diagnostic and a Cancer Biomarker Discovery Tool
Diamandis, E. P. (2004) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.r400007-mcp200 · Cited by 631
Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation
Ransohoff, D. F. (2004) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc1322 · Cited by 498
Tammen, H., Schulte, I., Hess, R., Menzel, C., Kellmann, M., Mohring, T., & Schulz‐Knappe, P. (2005) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.200401219 · Cited by 260
Biomarkers for early detection of breast cancer: What, when, and where?
LEVENSON, V (2007) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects · doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2007.01.017 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Sorace, J. M., & Zhan, M.
- Venue
- BMC Bioinformatics
- Published
- 2003-06-09
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-24
- ISSN
- 1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1537494447
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 39.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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 data review and re-assessment of ovarian cancer serum proteomic profiling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2105-4-24
- The paper
- Sorace, J. M., & Zhan, M. (2003). A data review and re-assessment of ovarian cancer serum proteomic profiling. BMC Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-4-24
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.