Mining the Ovarian Cancer Ascites Proteome for Potential Ovarian Cancer Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current ovarian cancer biomarkers are inadequate because of their relatively low diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. There is a need to discover and validate novel ovarian cancer biomarkers that are suitable for early diagnosis, monitoring, and prediction of therapeutic response. We performed an in-depth proteomics analysis of ovarian cancer ascites fluid. Size exclusion chromatography and ultrafiltration were used to remove high abundance proteins with molecular mass >/=30 kDa. After trypsin digestion, the subproteome (</=30 kDa) of ascites fluid was determined by two-dimensional liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Filtering criteria were used to select potential ovarian cancer biomarker candidates. By combining data from different size exclusion and ultrafiltration fractionation protocols, we identified 445 proteins from the soluble ascites fraction using a two-dimensional linear ion trap mass spectrometer. Among these were 25 proteins previously identified as ovarian cancer biomarkers. After applying a set of filtering criteria to reduce the number of potential biomarker candidates, we identified 52 proteins for which further clinical validation is warranted. Our proteomics approach for discovering novel ovarian cancer biomarkers appears to be highly efficient because it was able to identify 25 known biomarkers and 52 new candidate biomarkers that warrant further validation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".