CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of miR-205 in Colorectal Cancer

Orang, Ayla Valinezhad, Safaralizadeh, Reza, Feizi, Mohammad Ali Hosseinpour, Somi, Mohammad Hossein·2014·Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
DOI 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.9.4033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.9.4033

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Differential Expression of miR-205. miR205 relative expression in tumor samples showed a significant decrease compared to normal cohorts in some samples (a). However, in other samples, although miR-205 had undergone upregulation during tumorigenesis process, the p value was not significant (b). p values were **p<0.01 and p>0.05 respectively
Figure 1 Differential Expression of miR-205. miR205 relative expression in tumor samples showed a significant decrease compared to normal cohorts in some samples (a). However, in other samples, although miR-205 had undergone upregulation during tumorigenesis process, the p value was not significant (b). p values were **p<0.01 and p>0.05 respectivelyCC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Statistically Different Expression of miR-205 in Two Different Metastasis Statuses. The Mann-Whitney U test of expression levels of miR-205 in cancerous tissues revealed that miR-205 is significantly downregulated in positive lymphatic metastatic samples (L+) compared to non-metastatic tissues (L-) (**p value<0.01)
Figure 2 Statistically Different Expression of miR-205 in Two Different Metastasis Statuses. The Mann-Whitney U test of expression levels of miR-205 in cancerous tissues revealed that miR-205 is significantly downregulated in positive lymphatic metastatic samples (L+) compared to non-metastatic tissues (L-) (**p value<0.01)CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) in Detection of Lymphatic Metastatic CRCs. The ROC curve was automatically generated from 36 points of cutoff values set by the software SigmaPlot. The area under the ROC curve (AROC) is 0.81 out of 1 (a). The dot histogram shows the optimum 1.4×10 -3 cutoff point (gray dashed line) where specificity and sensitivity is 91% and 85% respectively (b)
Figure 3 Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) in Detection of Lymphatic Metastatic CRCs. The ROC curve was automatically generated from 36 points of cutoff values set by the software SigmaPlot. The area under the ROC curve (AROC) is 0.81 out of 1 (a). The dot histogram shows the optimum 1.4×10 -3 cutoff point (gray dashed line) where specificity and sensitivity is 91% and 85% respectively (b)CC-BY · From the PDF

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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 2009, Cancer Genomics Proteomics, 6, 281
  2. 2012, Cancer Genet, 205, 501, 10.1016/j.cancergen.2012.05.013 · DOI
  3. 2009, Int J Cancer, 125, 2737, 10.1002/ijc.24638 · DOI
  4. 1983, Lab Invest, 49, 140
  5. 2013, J Gastrointestin Liver Dis, 22, 311
  6. 2006, Dev Dyn, 235, 3156, 10.1002/dvdy.20956 · DOI
  7. 2010, J Cell Sci, 123, 606, 10.1242/jcs.056812 · DOI
  8. 2010, RNA Biol, 7, 300, 10.4161/rna.7.3.11837 · DOI
  9. 2008, Nat Cell Biol, 10, 593, 10.1038/ncb1722 · DOI
  10. 2008, Cell Cycle, 7, 3112, 10.4161/cc.7.20.6851 · DOI
  11. 2010, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 11, 1033
  12. 2012, Mol Oncol, 6, 140, 10.1016/j.molonc.2012.01.010 · DOI
  13. 2009, J Clin Oncol, 27, 5848, 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.0317 · DOI
  14. 2013, Adv Biolog Res, 7, 144
  15. 2012, Development, 139, 3471, 10.1242/dev.071209 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.2.577 · DOI
  17. 2012, Clin Cancer Res, 18, 1515, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2206 · DOI
  18. 2012, World J Gastrointest Oncol, 4, 68, 10.4251/wjgo.v4.i4.68 · DOI
  19. 2013, Eur J Cell Biol, 92, 54, 10.1016/j.ejcb.2012.11.002 · DOI
  20. 2012, Int J Prev Med, 3, 29
  21. 10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.3.873 · DOI
  22. 2011, Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 2101
  23. 2012, CA Cancer J Clin, 62, 10, 10.3322/caac.20138 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 2000, Int J Cancer, 88, 708, 10.1002/1097-0215(20001201)88:5<708::AID-IJC5>3.0.CO;2-J · DOI
  25. 2006, Gastroenterology, 131, 830, 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.06.016 · DOI
  26. 2011, Cancer Res, 71, 3087, 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3035 · DOI
  27. 2006, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 7, 131, 10.1038/nrm1835 · DOI
  28. 10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.1.139 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Orang, A. V., Safaralizadeh, R., Feizi, M. A. H., & Somi, M. H.
Venue
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
Publisher
Asian Pacific Organization for Cancer Prevention
Published
2014-05-15
Volume
15
Issue
9
Pages
4033-4037
ISSN
1513-7368
DOI
10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.9.4033
Cited by
35
References
1
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