Microarrays as Validation Strategies in Clinical Samples: Tissue and Protein Microarrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread use of DNA microarrays has led to the discovery of many genes whose expression profile may have significant clinical relevance. The translation of this data to the bedside requires that gene expression be validated as protein expression, and that annotated clinical samples be available for correlative and quantitative studies to assess clinical context and usefulness of putative biomarkers. We review two microarray platforms developed to facilitate the clinical validation of candidate biomarkers: tissue microarrays and reverse-phase protein microarrays. Tissue microarrays are arrays of core biopsies obtained from paraffin-embedded tissues, which can be assayed for histologically-specific protein expression by immunohistochemistry. Reverse-phase protein microarrays consist of arrays of cell lysates or, more recently, plasma or serum samples, which can be assayed for protein quantity and for the presence of post-translational modifications such as phosphorylation. Although these platforms are limited by the availability of validated antibodies, both enable the preservation of precious clinical samples as well as experimental standardization in a high-throughput manner proper to microarray technologies. While tissue microarrays are rapidly becoming a mainstay of translational research, reverse-phase protein microarrays require further technical refinements and validation prior to their widespread adoption by research laboratories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".