MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987100797 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i36.12874

Potential role of metabolomics in diagnosis and surveillance of gastric cancer

2014· review· en· W1987100797 on OpenAlexaff
Angela W. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetabolomicsCancerWarburg effectGlycolysisMedicineBioinformaticsDiseaseNucleic acidBiologyComputational biologyInternal medicineCancer cellBiochemistryMetabolism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastric cancer is one of the deadliest cancers worldwide, and is especially prevalent in Asian countries. With such high morbidity and mortality, early diagnosis is essential to achieving curative intent treatment and long term survival. Metabolomics is a new field of study that analyzes metabolites from biofluids and tissue samples. While metabolomics is still in its infancy, there are numerous potential applications in oncology, specifically early diagnosis. Only a few studies in the literature have examined metabolomics' role in gastric cancer. Various fatty acid, carbohydrate, nucleic acid, and amino acid metabolites have been identified that distinguish gastric cancer from normal tissue and benign gastric disease. However, findings from these few studies are at times conflicting. Most studies demonstrate some relationship of cancer cells to the Warburg Effect, in that glycolysis predominates with conversion of pyruvate to lactate. This is one of the most consistent findings across the literature. There is less consistency in metabolomic signature with respect to nucleic acids, lipids and amino acids. In spite of this, metabolomics holds some promise for cancer surveillance but further studies are necessary to achieve consistency and validation before it can be widely employed as a clinical tool.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations75
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207