MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979340580 · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2650

TCPA: a resource for cancer functional proteomics data

2013· letter· en· W1979340580 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jun Li, Yiling Lu, Rehan Akbani, Zhenlin Ju, Paul Roebuck, Wenbin Liu, Ji-Yeon Yang, Bradley M. Broom, Roeland Verhaak, David W. Kane, Chris Wakefield, John N. Weinstein, Gordon B. Mills, Han Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Methods · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of MiamiSusan G. Komen for the Cure
KeywordsProteomicsComputational biologyResource (disambiguation)BiologyComputer scienceBioinformaticsGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional proteomics represents a powerful approach to understand the pathophysiology and therapy of cancer. However, comprehensive cancer proteomic data have been relatively limited. As a part of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Project and other efforts, we have generated protein expression data over a large number of tumor and cell line samples using reverse-phase protein arrays (RPPAs). RPPA is a quantitative, antibody-based technology that can assess multiple protein markers in many samples in a cost-effective, sensitive and high-throughput manner 1 , 2 . This technology has been extensively validated for both cell line and patient samples 3 , 4 , 5 , and its applications range from building reproducible prognostic models 6 to generating experimentally verified mechanistic insights 7 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0140.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.018

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations538
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature MethodsSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207