Review



ca125 biomarker  (CH Instruments)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    CH Instruments ca125 biomarker
    Performance comparison between <t>CA125</t> alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.
    Ca125 Biomarker, supplied by CH Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/ca125+biomarker/pearson+chi+square+test/pmc12152359-180-29-35
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    ca125 biomarker - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Multi-analyte approach combining cfDNA sequencing and protein testing for early ovarian cancer detection"

    Article Title: Multi-analyte approach combining cfDNA sequencing and protein testing for early ovarian cancer detection

    Journal: iScience

    doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.112617

    Performance comparison between CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Performance comparison between CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.

    Techniques Used: Comparison, Biomarker Discovery, Labeling

    Performance comparison among the three combination tests (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK tests determined using the validation dataset. (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the ROMA model and the two combined biomarkers in different datasets. The cutoff values for the ROMA model in the premenopausal and postmenopausal populations were 11.4 and 29.9, respectively. The Youden Index was used to determine the threshold for the CA125+ctDNA and EarlySEEK and models. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified based on the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK tests at 95% and 98% specificity. (D) Overall sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK combination tests at 95% and 98% specificity in the entire cohort. (E) Sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK models stratified by tumor stage at 95% and 98% specificity. (F) Sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK models at 95% and 98% specificity in different tumor types and at different tumor stages. (G) Identification of different indicators in patients with OC who tested negative for CA125 (<35 U/mL) at 95% specificity. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Performance comparison among the three combination tests (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK tests determined using the validation dataset. (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the ROMA model and the two combined biomarkers in different datasets. The cutoff values for the ROMA model in the premenopausal and postmenopausal populations were 11.4 and 29.9, respectively. The Youden Index was used to determine the threshold for the CA125+ctDNA and EarlySEEK and models. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified based on the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK tests at 95% and 98% specificity. (D) Overall sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK combination tests at 95% and 98% specificity in the entire cohort. (E) Sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK models stratified by tumor stage at 95% and 98% specificity. (F) Sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK models at 95% and 98% specificity in different tumor types and at different tumor stages. (G) Identification of different indicators in patients with OC who tested negative for CA125 (<35 U/mL) at 95% specificity. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.

    Techniques Used: Comparison, Biomarker Discovery, Labeling



    Similar Products

    cancer biomarkers ca 125  (MedChemExpress)
    94
    MedChemExpress cancer biomarkers ca 125
    Cancer Biomarkers Ca 125, supplied by MedChemExpress, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/ca125+biomarker/CA125%2C+Human/pm41184081-48-2-21
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    cancer biomarkers ca 125 - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
    94/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    ca125 biomarker  (Chifeng Pharmaceutical Co Ltd)
    90
    Chifeng Pharmaceutical Co Ltd ca125 biomarker
    Ca125 Biomarker, supplied by Chifeng Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/ca125+biomarker/ca125+biomarker/pm40596619-90-5-28
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    ca125 biomarker - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    ca125 biomarker  (CH Instruments)
    90
    CH Instruments ca125 biomarker
    Performance comparison between <t>CA125</t> alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.
    Ca125 Biomarker, supplied by CH Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/ca125+biomarker/pearson+chi+square+test/pmc12152359-180-29-35
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    ca125 biomarker - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    ca125 biomarker  (Galectin Therapeutics)
    90
    Galectin Therapeutics ca125 biomarker
    Performance comparison between <t>CA125</t> alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.
    Ca125 Biomarker, supplied by Galectin Therapeutics, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/ca125+biomarker/galectin+3/pm35921940-9-3-5
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    ca125 biomarker - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    ca125 biomarker  (Abbott Laboratories)
    90
    Abbott Laboratories ca125 biomarker
    Performance comparison between <t>CA125</t> alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.
    Ca125 Biomarker, supplied by Abbott Laboratories, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/ca125+biomarker/architect+ca125+ii+assay/10__1002_slash_14651858__cd011964__pub2-1973-124-127
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    ca125 biomarker - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    ca125 biomarker test  (Abbott Laboratories)
    90
    Abbott Laboratories ca125 biomarker test
    Performance comparison between <t>CA125</t> alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.
    Ca125 Biomarker Test, supplied by Abbott Laboratories, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/ca125+biomarker/architect+ca125+ii+assay/10__1002_slash_14651858__cd011964__pub2-3249-154-155
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    ca125 biomarker test - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    ca125 biomarker  (Potenza Therapeutics)
    90
    Potenza Therapeutics ca125 biomarker
    Performance comparison between <t>CA125</t> alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.
    Ca125 Biomarker, supplied by Potenza Therapeutics, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/ca125+biomarker/ca125+biomarker/ppr0378057-191-21-0
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    ca125 biomarker - by Bioz Stars, 2026-09
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Performance comparison between CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.

    Journal: iScience

    Article Title: Multi-analyte approach combining cfDNA sequencing and protein testing for early ovarian cancer detection

    doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.112617

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Performance comparison between CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test using the validation dataset ( n = 127). (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the different biomarkers in the training, validation and the entire dataset. The cutoff value for CA125 was 35 U/mL; the cutoff values for the ctDNA and CA125+ctDNA models were defined using the Youden Index. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified using the different biomarkers at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (D) Overall sensitivities for CA125 alone, ctDNA alone, and the combination test at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (E) Sensitivity of different biomarkers stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in the validation and entire cohort. (F) Sensitivity of different indicators stratified by tumor stage at 95% specificity in patients with epithelial OC and non-epithelial OC. (G) ROC curves for CA125 alone and CA125+ctDNA in the CancerSEEK external validation cohort. (H) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the two biomarkers in the external validation cohort. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.

    Article Snippet: Moreover, the detection rate of early-stage OC (stage I and II) appeared to be higher in EOC groups than in non-EOC group for almost all the indicators; however, only CA125 showed a statistically significant difference (Chi-squared test, p = 0.03).

    Techniques: Comparison, Biomarker Discovery, Labeling

    Performance comparison among the three combination tests (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK tests determined using the validation dataset. (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the ROMA model and the two combined biomarkers in different datasets. The cutoff values for the ROMA model in the premenopausal and postmenopausal populations were 11.4 and 29.9, respectively. The Youden Index was used to determine the threshold for the CA125+ctDNA and EarlySEEK and models. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified based on the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK tests at 95% and 98% specificity. (D) Overall sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK combination tests at 95% and 98% specificity in the entire cohort. (E) Sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK models stratified by tumor stage at 95% and 98% specificity. (F) Sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK models at 95% and 98% specificity in different tumor types and at different tumor stages. (G) Identification of different indicators in patients with OC who tested negative for CA125 (<35 U/mL) at 95% specificity. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.

    Journal: iScience

    Article Title: Multi-analyte approach combining cfDNA sequencing and protein testing for early ovarian cancer detection

    doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2025.112617

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Performance comparison among the three combination tests (A) Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK tests determined using the validation dataset. (B) Comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy between the ROMA model and the two combined biomarkers in different datasets. The cutoff values for the ROMA model in the premenopausal and postmenopausal populations were 11.4 and 29.9, respectively. The Youden Index was used to determine the threshold for the CA125+ctDNA and EarlySEEK and models. (C) Venn diagram showing the number and proportion of patients with OC identified based on the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK tests at 95% and 98% specificity. (D) Overall sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK combination tests at 95% and 98% specificity in the entire cohort. (E) Sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK models stratified by tumor stage at 95% and 98% specificity. (F) Sensitivities of the ROMA, CA125+ctDNA, and EarlySEEK models at 95% and 98% specificity in different tumor types and at different tumor stages. (G) Identification of different indicators in patients with OC who tested negative for CA125 (<35 U/mL) at 95% specificity. The black lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for sensitivity. ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. Groups with statistical differences are labeled.

    Article Snippet: Moreover, the detection rate of early-stage OC (stage I and II) appeared to be higher in EOC groups than in non-EOC group for almost all the indicators; however, only CA125 showed a statistically significant difference (Chi-squared test, p = 0.03).

    Techniques: Comparison, Biomarker Discovery, Labeling