MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057666594 · doi:10.1586/14789450.5.4.551

Advances in ovarian cancer proteomics: the quest for biomarkers and improved therapeutic interventions

2008· review· en· W2057666594 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Jurisicova, Igor Jurišica, Thomas Kislinger

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Proteomics · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarker discoveryProteomicsOvarian cancerBiomarkerDiseaseCancerBioinformaticsMedicineComputational biologyBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death among gynecological cancers due to the asymptomatic nature of the disease, a lack of early detection markers and the development of resistance to current chemotherapeutic agents. Currently available tests (CA-125, transvaginal ultrasound or combination of both) lack the sensitivity and specificity to be useful as an efficient screening tool for surveillance of the general population. Thus, there is an urgent need for the development and validation of new molecular markers that would be both specific and sensitive indicators of disease onset, as well as progression. Proteomic profiling has emerged as a powerful tool to study ovarian cancer in an unbiased way at the molecular level, to monitor the effects of given treatment options and for the discovery of biomarkers. In this review we discuss the challenges associated with proteomics-based biomarker discovery and some recent concepts to potentially overcome these hurdles. Recent proteomics work on ovarian cancer cells and tissues will be discussed in light of obtaining new insights into fundamental biological processes, as well as their potential integration with ongoing biomarker discovery pipelines.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.371 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of ProteomicsSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207