MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037625634 · doi:10.1142/s0219720006002399

PROTEOMIC BIOMARKER IDENTIFICATION FOR DIAGNOSIS OF EARLY RELAPSE IN OVARIAN CANCER

2006· article· en· W2037625634 on OpenAlexaff
Jung Hun Oh, Animesh Nandi, Prem Gurnani, Lynne M. Knowles, John O. Schorge, Kevin P. Rosenblatt, Jean Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMarkov blanketFeature selectionSupport vector machineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Feature vectorBiomarker discoveryBiomarkerCurse of dimensionalityMachine learningIdentification (biology)Markov chainProteomicsMarkov modelBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovarian cancer recurs at the rate of 75% within a few months or several years later after therapy. Early recurrence, though responding better to treatment, is difficult to detect. Surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (SELDI-TOF) mass spectrometry has showed the potential to accurately identify disease biomarkers to help early diagnosis. A major challenge in the interpretation of SELDI-TOF data is the high dimensionality of the feature space. To tackle this problem, we have developed a multi-step data processing method composed of t-test, binning and backward feature selection. A new algorithm, support vector machine-Markov blanket/recursive feature elimination (SVM-MB/RFE) is presented for the backward feature selection. This method is an integration of minimum weight feature elimination by SVM-RFE and information theory based redundant/irrelevant feature removal by Markov Blanket. Subsequently, SVM was used for classification. We conducted the biomarker selection algorithm on 113 serum samples to identify early relapse from ovarian cancer patients after primary therapy. To validate the performance of the proposed algorithm, experiments were carried out in comparison with several other feature selection and classification algorithms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational BiologySame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207