Development of a Universal Metabolome-Standard Method for Long-Term LC–MS Metabolome Profiling and Its Application for Bladder Cancer Urine-Metabolite-Biomarker Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale metabolomics study requires a quantitative method to generate metabolome data over an extended period with high technical reproducibility. We report a universal metabolome-standard (UMS) method, in conjunction with chemical isotope labeling liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), to provide long-term analytical reproducibility and facilitate metabolome comparison among different data sets. In this method, UMS of a specific type of sample labeled by an isotope reagent is prepared a priori. The UMS is spiked into any individual samples labeled by another form of the isotope reagent in a metabolomics study. The resultant mixture is analyzed by LC-MS to provide relative quantification of the individual sample metabolome to UMS. UMS is independent of a study undertaking as well as the time of analysis and useful for profiling the same type of samples in multiple studies. In this work, the UMS method was developed and applied for a urine metabolomics study of bladder cancer. UMS of human urine was prepared by (13)C2-dansyl labeling of a pooled sample from 20 healthy individuals. This method was first used to profile the discovery samples to generate a list of putative biomarkers potentially useful for bladder cancer detection and then used to analyze the verification samples about one year later. Within the discovery sample set, three-month technical reproducibility was examined using a quality control sample and found a mean CV of 13.9% and median CV of 9.4% for all the quantified metabolites. Statistical analysis of the urine metabolome data showed a clear separation between the bladder cancer group and the control group from the discovery samples, which was confirmed by the verification samples. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) test showed that the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.956 in the discovery data set and 0.935 in the verification data set. These results demonstrated the utility of the UMS method for long-term metabolomics and discovering potential metabolite biomarkers for diagnosis of bladder cancer.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".