Molecular Sampling of Prostate Cancer: a dilemma for predicting disease progression
Current prostate cancer prognostic models are based on pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical staging but in practice are inadequate to accurately predict clinical disease progression. Hence, we sought to develop a molecular panel for prostate cancer progression by reasoning that molecular profiles might further improve current clinical models. We analyzed a Swedish Watchful Waiting cohort (1977–1999) with up to 30 years of clinical follow up usi...
Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 37 papers in the literature. Roles are inferred factual signals (who deposited the data vs who reused it), with counts — never a judgement about any author.
- The tumour hypoxia marker pimonidazole reflects a transcriptiona... 2014 · 225 cites
- Human DECR1 is an androgen-repressed survival factor that regula... 2020 · 200 cites
- SPDEF Inhibits Prostate Carcinogenesis by Disrupting a Positive... 2014 · 97 cites
- KLF5 downregulation desensitizes castration-resistant prostate c... 2019 · 72 cites
33 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
metadata only · no data-level QC for this typeStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained
No quantitative QC rubric exists for this data type yet, so it is deliberately left unscored — this is an honest "not applicable", not a poor rating.
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0 · provisional — verify independently
Scientific quality
Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.