MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048883607 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031868

The Potential Role of ORM2 in the Development of Colorectal Cancer

2012· article· en· W2048883607 on OpenAlexaff
Xuhua Zhang, Zhiying Xiao, Xiaoyong Liu, Lutao Du, Lili Wang, Shun Wang, Ni Zheng, Guixi Zheng, Wěi Li, Xin Zhang, Zhaogang Dong, Xuewei Zhuang, Chuanxin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersShandong University
KeywordsColorectal cancerBiomarkerProteomicsCancerWestern blotProteomeChemistryCancer researchBiologyMolecular biologyMedicineBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy in the world. The risk of death is closely correlated to the stage of CRC at the time of primary diagnosis. Therefore, there is a compelling need for the identification of blood biomarkers that can enable early detection of CRC. We used a quantitative proteomic approach with isobaric labeling (iTRAQ) to examine changes in the plasma proteome of 10 patients with CRC compared to healthy volunteers. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbnent Assay (ELISA) and Western blot were used for further validation. In our quantitative proteomics analysis, we detected 75 human plasma proteins with more than 95% confidence using iTRAQ labeling in conjunction with microQ-TOF MS. 9 up-regulated and 4 down-regulated proteins were observed in the CRC group. The ORM2 level in plasma was confirmed to be significantly elevated in patients suffering from CRC compared with the controls. ORM2 expression in CRC tissues was significantly increased compared with that in corresponding adjacent normal mucous tissues (P<0.001). ITRAQ together with Q-TOF/MS is a sensitive and reproducible technique of quantitative proteomics. Alteration in expression of ORM2 suggests that ORM2 could be used as a potential biomarker in the diagnosis of CRC.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations50
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207