Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 161

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combined use of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity for the diagnosis of gastric cancer

He, Chao-Zhu, Zhang, Kun-He, Li, Qing, Liu, Xiao-Hua, Hong, Yan, Lv, Nong-Hua·2013·BMC Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background: The detection of serum tumor marker becomes a common method for screening tumors. However, this method has not been widely used for routine gastric cancer screening. In this study we aimed to determine whether the combined use of tumor markers may increase the sensitivity for the diagnosis of gastric cancer. Methods: Serum AFP, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 levels were measured in 149 patients with gastric cancer, 111 patients with benign gastric diseases and 124 healthy people, who visited the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from May 2011 to May 2012. Statistical analysis including receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the area under the curve (AUC), and logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of these markers on gastric cancer. Results: Serum levels of CEA, CA125, and CA19-9 in gastric cancer group were higher than that in the benign gastric disease group and the healthy control group (P <0.005). The sensitivity of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CA19-9 in the diagnosis of gastric cancer was 4.7-20.8% individually, and increased to 40.3% in combination. By using optimal cut-off value, the sensitivity of CEA, CA125, and CA19-9 for the diagnosis of gastric cancer was improved. Especially, the sensitivity of CEA increased to 58.4% and the sensitivity of combined use of four markers increased to 69.1%. The age and gender had no effects on the diagnostic value of these markers. Conclusions: The determination and application of optimal cut-off values based on ROC curve and logistic regression analysis could improve the diagnosis of gastric cancer based on common tumor 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-230x-13-87

Cites

15 of 15 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 15 references

Cited by

See all 161

Metadata

Authors
He, C.-Z., Zhang, K.-H., Li, Q., Liu, X.-H., Hong, Y., & Lv, N.-H.
Venue
BMC Gastroenterology
Published
2013-05-14
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
1471-230X
Cited by
161
References
15
Language
en

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: Combined use of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity for the diagnosis of gastric cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-230x-13-87
The paper
He, C.-Z., Zhang, K.-H., Li, Q., Liu, X.-H., Hong, Y., & Lv, N.-H. (2013). Combined use of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity for the diagnosis of gastric cancer. BMC Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230x-13-87

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.