Talk:Mucin-16

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Content entered the article in December 2009, but is clearly archived at the external site prior to that date. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Outdated information
The information on CA-125 as a screening tool is outdated. The article linked to was published in 1998. Currently it is commonly used in screening. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * According to all of the scholarly articles I can find, CA-125 levels are currently used to monitor the progression of ovarian cancer following treatment, but not for widespread screening of individuals without symptoms of disease. If you have a contrary referance please share. I will add some of the more recent publications I have found on the topic. --Kathryn Beabout (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Superfluous citation warning
Since 2019 the article has been tagged with the warning "more medical citations needed etc". The tag has been included by AnomieBOT. < In my opinion, the 26 available citations are correct and apt, using high quality sources. Of course, no citation list will ever be complete, but this number seems rather sufficient. Maybe someone disagrees, but I propose to remove this bot-generated tag, as it seems rather redundant. Opzwartbeek (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)